“The exponential population growth is so far out of balance
that this will impose heavy penalties on individuals as well as
nations. Ultimately this will impose coercive measures of
fertility regulation. This can be avoided by increasing
knowledge and availability of contraception. If such measures
are not made available, the penalties to the poor and nations
will be enormous and the ripple effect will inevitably extend to
the rich as well." Robert McNamara, ex-U.S.
Secretary of Defense and ex-President of the World Bank.

SUMMARY:

The planet can sustain 6 billion people.
We have surpassed this number. We are already seeing increases
in death and diseases due to decreasing sustenance as shown in
the home page graph. At the present rate of population growth,
we expect about 3 billion more people in the next 40 years.

Our increasing consumption is stripping
our agricultural, water and fuel supplies. Fossil fuels,
fertilizers and insecticides are poisoning the air and water,
causing diseases and death. At the rate we are going, we will
have no environment to live in about 100 years from now unless
we address these problems urgently.

Nothing in the history of mankind has so
threatened the world as overpopulation. Our peace,
economic stability and, ultimately, our survival depends on our
willingness to face this problem. The present report
encompasses solutions in all fields because overpopulation
touches every aspect of our and our planet’s life. The
know-how to solve these problems is already available. It
is imperative that we apply and share this knowledge with
optimism, so we all take measures to prevent the disastrous
effects that this problem, if unchecked, will bring.

The solution is simple: mass education
regarding these problems, hand in hand with conservation, family
planning, good stewardship for our environment and one another.
In order to assure future generations sustenance, new couples
must only bring one or, maximum, two children into their
families or all present and future generations will have no food
or environment to sustain them.

In 2002, the president of
the World Health Organization mentioned to the international
community, that having an honest dialog with one's countrymen
will allow them to see the seriousness of the realities of our
times, and they will champion reforms. How can they do
so if no one openly speaks to them about this?A new ethic and moral spirit must
arise from this, so we can walk into the future, hand in
hand as fellow men. The alternative is devastation and war.

TIME:
Population models show that if we continue with
unchecked population growth, global devastation within 100 years
will rapidly ensue, so the problem is extremely time
sensitive. Most think we have all the time in the world to
address these problems; however, since no concerted efforts have
been undertaken, we are quite behind. Showing the urgency
is real, according to Cornell University's report: Environmental
Development and Sustainability, the maximum population our
planet can sustain is 6 billion people. The World
Commission on Environment defines sustainability as: “A
sustainable society is one that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs”. We have surpassed the 6 billion
benchmark, and already, due to diminishing food, water,
increasing disease and pollution, the predicted human die-off is
starting to occur. In the last 10 years, the previous
usual 2.2% population growth has dropped to 1.2% due to our
planet’s inability to cope with the increasing needs of our
growing population, not as we assumed due to increased
access to family planning and better economies. Third
world countries are the most affected as 6 million children die
annually from hunger. In the USA one in five children goes
to bed hungry every night. According to Cornell
University’s report, in order for humankind to sustain its
future generations every new family must not have more than 1
or, at most, 1.5 children. It has been demonstrated that
if we do not heed this advice and continue to ignore family
planning the planet will become uninhabitable with in this
century (1, 2, 3 and 4). Reports from John
Hopkins, Harvard and Stanford University’s population studies
that concur with Cornell's report, influenced the UN to embark
in a multinational exhaustive investigation. These
scientists and the UN’s studies arrived at similar conclusions,
giving guidelines to all aspects of human endeavors in order to
accomplish sustainability (5).
We
are hopeful and believe the doomsday prophesies will not have to
take place since mankind already has the know-how of fixing
these problems and can catch up for lost time to curb these
problems if we start NOW. We, however, need our leaders to
bring this situation to light, and have them take steps to
address these problems. Unless leaders openly point to this
problem, there will not be a chance to make any changes, for the
ignorance of the subject is almost universal.

PERCEPTION:
Perception is the greatest problem. Unfortunately, most
people are unaware of the overpopulation problem and its
urgency. Many, for political, economic and religious reasons,
distort the truth by seading misinformation claiming there is
no such thing as an overpopulation problem, or claim populations
are decreasing.

An
illiterate poor hungry farmer cannot comprehend that there is a
problem of overpopulation, for where he is, there are usually
few people. When one sees the vastness of the world, it is
inconceivable that the resources and space are limited.
Yes, all of mankind can fit in an area the size of Colorado, so
there is no shortage of space, but the planet cannot produce at
the same rate as our growing needs -- therein lies the
problem. We must teach that the newborn demand sustenance
at a faster pace than the planet can provide. Unless we limit
our new families to no more than one or two children per family,
conserve and become good stewards of our planet
mankind will not subsist in the near future. This is in our and
our children's best immediate economic and spiritual interest.

ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY:
Easter Island, once a verdant forest teeming with wildlife and
people, is now a barren grassy knoll studded with giant godlike
monoliths staring forlornly at a future that never came.
They are a reminder of how a lack of respect for the environment
and ignorance of family planning caused their civilization to
become extinct. They exhausted all natural supplies,
having to ultimately resort to cannibalism. In Discovery
magazine’s: EASTER ISLAND’S END, we see how lack of food
caused ethnic cleansing amongst its inhabitants and, ultimately,
led to cannibalism of their own people (6). Recently, a similar problem
arose in Uganda because of severe hunger that led to a
widespread massacre disguised as an “ethnic cleansing”.
Let this be a presage of things to come (7).

In Phoenician times Cyprus, Malta, Greece, Syria and Lebanon
were covered by lush forests teeming with trees and
wildlife. Man burned the forests to cultivate crops, used
timber for building and overgrazed the land with goats, thereby
creating the barren lands we know at present (112).Reforesting now is beyond these
nations’ economic means(8). The USA and the world
are facing enormous deforestation. Tree cutting, needed to
clear areas for more housing, developing, agriculture or for the
use of timber is causing havoc to the environment. The
forestry organization mentioned this severe problem in 1997 (9)

DEMOGRAPHICS, LAND RESOURCES
AND HUNGER: According to a report
of the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences, about 0.5 hectares per
capita of cropland is needed to provide a balanced plant and
animal diet for humans worldwide. For the 1990 population
of 5.5 billion, only 0.27 hectares per capita were available and
it has declined further since (10).

According
to World Bank figures, 6 million children die annually from
malnutrition. In the last 12 years, 40 million
more people have been added to the list of moderate poverty,
making their total above 2.7 billion. The World Bank
defines “moderate poverty” as subsisting on $1-$2
per day. Thus 1/3 of the planet’s people live in
hunger. Hunger causes wars and forces people to leave
their lands. As refugees they have insufficient food, shelter
and medicines. Death caused by these circumstances is
already growing worldwide (11). Some argue that poor
distribution of food is the reason there is starvation in many
countries. The UN Global Policy Forum shows how the
shortages are real, not merely political, although HUNGER IS FOR
THE MOST PART DUE TO POOR GOVERNMENT(12).

Now
we have 6.3 billion people and have, at best, small parcels of
marginal arable land in reserve. Annually about 28 million
acres of woodland and forests are destroyed for farming,
building and agriculture. The Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) conducted a study concerning potentially
arable land called: Agriculture toward 2000This
study reported that only 11% of the earth's surface is
suitable for agriculture. It mentions that cultivated
land is lost at about the same rate as new land that is being
transformed into desert due to soil erosion. It recommends
that to mitigate land destruction, at least 25% of arable land
must be protected by programs of water and soil
conservation. It concludes that "by the end of the
century, shortage of land will have become a critical constraint
for about two-thirds of the population of the developing
countries”. We have arrived at this milestone, Uganda is
an example of this land shortage that triggered massive killings
due to competition for food.

In
40-45 years at current birth rates, we will have about 9-10
billion people, according to United Nations' projections.
The United States showed 5 million people in the l800
census. In 2005 the estimates show 295.7 million.
How then can we expect to feed more than the land can
sustain? Modern methods, including genetically engineered
seeds and animals, have temporarily closed the gap in food
shortages. Their abundance has worsened the problem, for
more and more people could be fed, thus allowing for unpredicted
population growth. These agricultural methods are now
proving destructive to our lands and are decimating them.
Another factor is that there is a limit to how much crops and
animal husbandry can produce. This is already reflected in
the grain shortages and increasing human death rates. The
FAO report’s prediction has now been proven correct.(11) (2).

ETHICS AND POLITICS: The
population graph on our cover page (www.lifewatchgroup.org)
shows that since the dawn of man, human populations were kept in
check until the 1800’s by disease caused by
virus/bacteria/parasites etc. This natural balance was
forever altered by vaccines, antibiotics and advances in medical
care. This was spurred by the advent of the industrial
revolution, the green revolution, mechanized farming, genetic
engineering, etc. By virtue of this, man altered the
natural order and by doing so, experienced unsustainable
exponential population growth. No world leader advised us
that this unchecked growth would come tumbling down because this
would have been unpopular. The need for growth, fueled by
economic and political interest, made it so that no world
leader, even today, wants to address this problem. Many,
for political, economic and religious reasons, distort the truth
by spreading misinformation claiming that there is no such thing
as an overpopulation problem. Due to their own agendas
some distort the truth claiming that populations are
dwindling. This denial is most evident among religious
organizations, governments and businesses, who, needing more
subscribers, loath limiting population growth as it would
diminish their influence or economies. Some religions, in
order to increase followers at any cost, encourage large numbers
of children per family. To assure this, for example, some
religions label birth control pills and condoms etc as
“immoral”. The ethical question is: is it not more immoral
to expose the user to AIDS or the spreading of it? In
other cases, the user is forced to bring into this world a child
he does not want and cannot feed. In such cases some opt
for infanticide or abortion, a growing human scourge. Is
this a moral situation? Some countries that are facing
social security fund-shortages need the new generations to fund
them. In such countries, discouraging births would be
against their own agenda; for they need new generations
joining the work force to pay for social security. These new
generations however will face no future of their own at the rate
we are going.(13)

Now
that we have reached the point of the planet’s limit of human
sustainability, let us teach new couples that if they want their
children to have a sustainable future, they have to make the
moral decision of limiting their family. The alternative
is if we continue with the present population growth, the strong
will force out the weaker by means of war or starvation, and
usurp their resources. Let us not forget the fall of Rome,
the French Revolution etc., when hungry hoards destroyed the
greatest and most powerful societies. When the numbers of
the hungry increase, no US military force will be able to cope
with the ramming of its core by the hungry from within and from
abroad. Let us not wait for governments to force us to
limit us to one child per couple, as China did. China was
forced to impose such drastic measures because it faced huge
famines and had not addressed their overpopulation problems in
time. Should it have been addressed when there was time,
they could have allowed for two children per family. China
has learned this the hard way. By doing so, they are
becoming the fastest growing economic superpower of the 21st
century(14).

Now,
according to the World Health Organization 1/3 of the world is
well-fed, 1/3 suffers from hunger while living on $1-$2
U.S. Dollars a day and 1/3 are starving and live on less than $1
a day, so-called “absolute poverty”. About 160 million of
the world’s children under the age of five are malnourished
according to the U.N reports. It has been calculated that
millions of deaths could be prevented for the price of ten
Stealth bombers! According to UNICEF the world's 358
billionaires have assets exceeding the combined annual incomes
of countries with 45 % of the world's people. To satisfy
the world's sanitation and food requirements it would cost the
US only $13 billion - what the people of the United States and
the European Union spend on perfume each year. The US
Congress states that the USA spent, in the Afghanistan-Iraq war,
$208 billion at the expense to the US taxpayers as of July, 2005
(See the politics of fossil fuels below). The assets of
the world's three richest men are more than the combined GNP of
all the least developed countries on the planet (15) (16). This poor distribution of
wealth allows for such human inequity. The social
democratic model of Sweden shows how, in this country, such
disparity would never be tolerated (Charts J and K).

To
a great extent poverty and hunger are political . Farm
subsides in the USA and other countries
make it so that it is impossible for many poor farmers in third
world countries to compete with their products; thus they go
hungry. These poor countries have then to ask for foreign
aid, and end up paying interest to the lender nations that
caused them this unfair competition. What is needed is a
fair playing field. Stop the farming subsidies in the USA
and elsewhere and give the local farmer’s worldwide a chance to
make their products competitive so they can feed their
own. For example, Switzerland pays a $3 subsidy per cow
per day to its farmers. Brazilians’ poor say they would
love to be a Swiss cow, as it is wealthier than them.
These poor people only have their lands and their hands.
No genetically engineered seeds, no subsidies, no sophisticated
fertilizers or irrigation, no complex machinery and no
satellites to tell them when to irrigate or when to fertilize,
no sales personnel, no warehouses and/or stores distribute their
products. If we do not remove subsidies, the poor will
have no chance while the multinational corporations grow in
wealth. Another example of political abuse causing poverty
is the many government leaders and dictators supported by
wealthy governments because they are willing to sell their
national resources at a discount, taking away from the wealth of
their citizens. Many a political leader that has stolen
from its national treasure has been given asylum by other
nations so the funds will not return to their country.
International laws protecting nations from such pillage must be
created, making leaders accountable, so this white collar theft
is penalized to the strictest extent of the law, and no asylum
in such cases shall be granted.

Some countries refuse to assist in family planning and promote
sex education as well as prohibiting doctors to advise women
with unwanted pregnancies of their reproductive rights. The USA
passed in the last 5 years a "gag rule" to prevent international
doctors working in family planning clinics that receive USA
funds from disseminating this information. All of these
and many other ethical imperatives must be addressed. By
increasing awareness of these truths we hope a new outlook on
life will ensue causing us to develop a new ethic and morality.

AGRICULTURE:
Agricultural advances, including mechanized
monoculture farming and genetic engineering, revolutionized food
production and gave great hope to the world’s growing food
demands. This so-called “green revolution”, hoped to
eradicate hunger. Food production almost quadrupled,
causing populations to grow in numbers as never before.
Over forty years of experience with these methods show these
techniques, although most fruitful, also bring great increases
in pests, pathogens, resistant insects, weeds, Stalinization,
diminishing aquifers, pollution, destruction of ecosystems and
soil erosion that ultimately led to a reduction in production
and, in many cases, to soil destruction according to innumerable
reports (see the report of the World Resources Institute 2001 “testing
the limits of Agro ecosystems”) and reports by the UN’s
Food and Agricultural Organization FAO (16).

In 1982, the USA showed that one fifth of its cropland was
losing topsoil at accelerated rates due to this type of farming
and now about 25% is severely eroded. After so many years
of this farming it has been determined that the safer and wiser
older methods must be sought. Old methods are not as
productive, so a balance of both new ones and old have to be
replaced by a more environmentally sensitive plan that will
reach a balance avoiding errors of the past. Governments
must provide farmers with agricultural extension programs so
farming education is readily available; crop rotation;
re-tilling old crop material into the soil to maintain soil
nourishment, and mixing cropplant variety hasto be
implemented. Water conserving irrigation and hardy
multi-variety seeds are key.

1)
FERTILIZERS: Artificial fertilizers
have caused a considerable increase in global food production;
however, these have worsened land and water pollution (18). In
the book Fateful Harvest, Duff Wilson, a Pulitzer Prize
nominee, writes an expose of how USA fertilizer companies mix
toxic waste into fertilizers. The US, unlike European
nations and Canada, does not regulate fertilizers as these
countries do, thus allowing for a much higher percentage of
toxins in their products. A California Department of Food
and Agriculture (CDFA) assessment of the health risk posed by
toxic fertilizers warns that eating food grown with contaminated
fertilizers will be the greatest single source of exposure to
these contaminants in commercial products. Genetically
engineered seeds have considerably increased food production;
however these need extra fertilizers, irrigation and pesticides,
causing pollution, drop in water tables and species destruction.

2)
PESTICIDES:
New farming methods require large amounts of
pesticides. Over time, insects and weeds become more
resistant and require higher doses of insecticides according to
the World Resources Institute and OECD. Each year there
are 26 million pesticide poisonings worldwide with 220,000
deaths (Richter, 2002). In the U.S., NCFH (2004) reports
there are 300,000 nonfatal pesticide poisonings. The major
economic and environmental losses due to the application of
pesticides in the U.S. were: public health -- $1.1 billion
per year; pesticide resistance in pests -- $1.5 billion; crop
losses, -- $1.4 billion; bird losses due to pesticides -- $2.2
billion; and groundwater contamination -- $2.0 billion.
U.S. scientist Samuel Epstein, author of several books on
cancer, points out that up to 90 % of human cancers
are caused by pesticides, chemical and fossil fuel
pollution. With the advent of Genetically Manipulated (GM)
seeds, there was hope of feeding the world in light of the
shortages. These, however, require more pesticides or a
number of these plants will have genetically ingrained
pesticides, causing some of the insect and animal biodiversity
to be negatively affected or decimated, upsetting the ecology(18) (19).

3) IRRIGATION AND WATER:
About 2/3 of the world's water is wasted due to misuse,
reflecting the fact that farmers are not required to pay for
it. As a result, water-table levels are dropping,
causing water shortages. The BBC mentions a United
Nation report that across the globe water tables are running
low due to misuse and increased need by new agricultural
methods (20).

State subsidies for water, electricity, pesticides and
fertilizers encourage land, water and energy abuse, further
destroying the soil and inflating fiscal deficits.
Dwindling water will lead to wars in the long run if laws
for fair water usage are not established now. Less
than 0.08% of all the Earth's fresh water is useful for
human needs. In the next two decades, human use is
estimated to increase about 40% (graph 1, 2). In 1999,
the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) showed a
report from 200 scientists in 50 countries that pointed out
that water shortages was one of the two most urgent problems
(the other was global warming) and now growing. About
70% of the water is used in agriculture now. The
World Water Council calculates that by 2020 we shall need
17% more water than is available if we are to feed the
masses ( graph A and B).In Israel, water is treated as
a precious commodity. Its agricultural methods must be
followed.

4) FARMING,
GOVERNMENTAL SUBSIDIES, AND
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION: According
to the Heritage Foundation, U.S. farm policy "is based on
the premise that a surplus of crops has lowered crop prices
too far and farmers need subsidies to recover lost income”.
However, the federal government's remedy is to offer
subsidies that increase as a farmer plants more crops. This
creates greater crop surpluses, driving prices down even
further and spurring demands for even greater
subsidies. It estimates that this subsidy will cost US
tax payers $462 billion over 10 years, i.e. $4,377 per
average US household. These subsidies are making the
USA unpopular at the World Trade Organization (WTO), where
USA negotiators have been trying to get other countries to
reduce their agricultural subsidies. Abolishing
subsidies ( which are trade barriers) would enable
poorer nations to sustain their economies by exporting more
of their own products and free trade would rule, causing
prices to reflect the real market needs and not the
artificial prices established by politicians. Many a
foreign farmer cannot compete with the US and European
highly subsidized and modernized farm products, so he is out
of business, causing further poverty in these poor
countries. In most poor countries, all they have is
their farms and hands to seek a living ( photo A and
B). Their countries are too poor to subsidize them.

5)
GENETICALLY MODIFIED SEEDS:
(referred to as GM or GE): There is a new threat to
food production and biodiversity: genetically altered
seeds. Once planted, some are engineered to
produce infertile seeds, so farmers cannot save the “seeds”
for the next year’s crops. This causes dependence of
farmers on the seed companies. These plants have
caused cross pollination with natural seeds, altering the
fertile plant’s ability to be fertile in the future.
One such multi-national conglomerate that produces such seed
is Monsanto. Some of these companies are
purchasing seed companies worldwide in order to monopolize
the market, and only sell non-fertile varieties of seeds.
There is danger of famines with these type of seeds, as
mentioned under our chapter on CLONING. These GE seeds
are expensive, and should farmers not be able to afford them
for next year’s crop, can cause disastrous declines in food
production. Monsanto has successfully sued farmers
whose crops contain some of the genetically altered plants
i.e. Monsanto found some of their GE plants in fields
belonging to farmers who did not purchase their seeds
because their seeds had cross pollinated and appeared in
some fertile farmers’ land. This new litigious era in
the agribusiness will further erode our ability to feed the
masses. The
Secretary to the Advisory cause Committee on Releases to
the Environment (ACRE) presented a paper that shows
declines in farmland, wildlife and serious concerns
regarding genetically modified crops. The document
outlines initiatives to combat the current GM seed
situation(23).

Geerta Ritsema, GM Campaign Coordinator of Friends of the
Earth/ Europe said in reference to the genetically modified
seeds: “For the European Commission to allow GM seed
proposals is a recipe for disaster. These seeds will
lead to the widespread contamination of Europe's food,
farming and environment and take away the consumers ability
to avoid GM. European member states must step in where
the Commission has failed and ban these GM seeds if they
prove dangerous to the environment after no less than 5
years of testing. Friends of the Earth welcome this
decision and believe that the Governmental Commission now
has a golden opportunity to bring out better proposals that
will protect people and the environment. Public safety
must come before the financial interests of the
biotechnology industry and monopolies must never be
allowed”.

6)
GENETICALLYENGINEERED ORGANISMS:
(GMO) is a genetically engineered plant or animal to which
other species’ genes have been introduced in order to have
them express a specific trait. For example, some
tomatoes have fish genetic material engineered in their
make-up, so that they have longer shelf life. Mixing
species is altering our natural biodiversity in ways in
which we cannot tell what their future impact will be. We do
not know if these will endanger natural species. We
must advocate to have years of testing before they are
considered “safe”. This unfortunately is not done, and
therein lays the danger. Human meddling with nature
can bring surprising problems that sometimes are
deadly. One example of how unexpected problems can take
place: when farmers started feeding proteins (meat
scraps) to cows in the hopes that they would fatten faster.
Since cattle are not physiologically able to digest meat, mad
cow disease appeared as a complication. These
new man-created diseases are totally unpredictable, but
their impact is deadly to economies and species. Susan
Davidson, organizer of The Vermont Genetic Engineering
Action Network mentions that: “very little testing is being
performed on genetically engineered seeds and their
resulting crops before they are released to market – and the
USDA, the FDA, and the EPA have shifted or bypassed
regulatory standards in their zeal to support these firms
and their new technologies. The FDA currently does not
require labeling of genetically engineered foodstuffs; the
consumer right to know is only enforced by the FDA when it
deems that the food has undergone a ‘qualitative change’ by
virtue of an ingredient or a process. The FDA has thus
effectively stated that willfully manipulating a plant’s
genetic structure by mating it with a species that would not
naturally be a viable breeding partner, thereby creates a
new life form, and does not constitute a qualitative change
to the plant itself” (24).
In light of this, new regulations must be
writtento prevent future disasters.GMO’s
and GE seeds should be tested as stringently as human
medicines are prior to their release into the market for
assurance that no danger will ensue from their utilization.

AGRO POLITICS:
Unfortunately, politically connected companies
are the ones who obtain permits, and governments with their
regulatory offices look the other way, as these billionaire
companies purchase connections and politically get their
agendas approved. Most of the public is unaware of
this. In reference #25, there is a complete list of
multi-national companies that produce genetically engineered
seeds and organisms. These are some of the leading
companies: Monsanto, DuPont, Aventis, Novartis, and
Syngenta. A list of some products where products from
these seeds are utilized mention: Coca Cola, Fleishmann’s
margarine, Fritos, Green Giant Harvest Burgers, Karo Corn
Syrup, Kraft Salad Dressings, McDonalds French Fries, Nestle
Crunch, Nutrasweet, Quaker Oats corn meal, Roundup and
Similac Infant Formula among others (24) (25). About 20 years
ago, approximately 7000 world seed companies reached 10% of
global markets. Since then, only 10 companies survived
and now control over 40% of the worlds’ market (26).

AGRO EDUCATION:
Governments must aid farmers with education regarding better
agricultural techniques, including encouragement for
reforestation, alternating crops, mixed crops and
planting/tilling techniques to prevent soil erosion.
Water conservation using Israeli techniques should be
taught. Cooperative marketing, based on free
enterprise farming, allows farmers to share equipment, buy
and sell products as a team. This stimulates farming,
increases incomes and makes the middle man
unnecessary. Public schools and health care facilities
must be brought to the country to assure settlements.
Logistic and distribution systems must be made available in
rural areas and offered to all farmers to enable
commercialization of their products. Systems, such as
farmers markets must be encouraged by governments to enable
farmers to sell their products directly to consumers.
The alternatives are decreased food supply and human
migration to the cities, creating subhuman slums like those
in Mexico City, Manila or Calcutta.

FORESTRY: Trees and plants are
the lungs of the world since they are our oxygen
producers. They clean the atmosphere of C02, retain
moisture, prevent land erosion and provide habitats to
wildlife. Worldwide massive deforestation is
aggravating desertification, drop in water tables and global
warming ( graph C, D
photo C).

Since 1600, 90% of the virgin forests that once covered much
of the lower USA’s 48 states have been cleared away.
The majority of the remaining old-growth forests are on
public lands. In the Pacific Northwest about 80% of
this forestland is earmarked for logging under the current
administration.

The following are estimated
worldwide yearly average rates of deforestation in acres
during 1990-1995
(Printed with permission)GraphD

World Resources Institute 1991

37.84
million acres 15 million hectares

World Watch Institute 1998

38.40
million acres 15 million hectares

Land protection of arable and forest has been so successful
in Japan that their ideas can be used as a blue print.
This includes encouraging vertical dwelling in order not to
diminish arable land and allowing for plant and animal
habitat (27).

A major part of the deforestation problem is that
many people take the short-term profit even though
patience is more profitable. The New York Botanical
Garden and Yale University reported in the l989 issue of Naturethat one hectare of Brazilian rainforest can produce
$6,330 dollars if it is left as is, selectively harvesting
its fruit, latex and timber over 50 years. The same
hectare, transformed into a timber plantation, would
produce $3,184 during 50 years; if that hectare were used
for cattle farming, it would produce $2,960 during that
same period. But, because that same hectare would
produce $1,000 immediately when it is logged, the owner
invariably takes that one-time income, leaving nothing for
his children's future. Bad governance has shown how
forests and peoples depending on them have also been
harmed. Some of the funds loaned by the World Bank
have caused disastrous effects in Cambodia, for example,
as reported by Brettonwoods org.(28)

INTERNATIONAL DEBT: The World
Bank loaned $22.3 billion to foreign countries in
2005. Developing countries owed $2.28 trillion
in 1990 in international debt according to the World
Bank. This debt also requires interest payments, which
these countries can hardly afford. Valuable forests
had to be cut or burned to raise crops for farms ( photo A)
or logging in order to pay the debts to make ends meet. To a great extent
poverty and hunger are political . Farm subsides
in the USA make it so that it is impossible for many
poor farmers in third world countries to compete with
the US products; thus they go hungry. These poor
countries have then to ask for foreign aid, and end up
paying interest to the lender nations that caused them
this unfair competition. What is needed is a fair
playing field. Stop the farming subsidies in the
USA and elsewhere and give the local farmer’s worldwide
a chance to make their products competitive so they can
feed their own. In July, 2005 during
the G8 meeting, some of the billions of foreign debt were
forgiven realizing the desperate situation these loans are
causing poor economies. (29).

WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES: Barber Conable, President of
the World Bank said: "Sound Ecology is good
economics”. Ecological niches are disappearing due to
city sprawl, over hunting and over fishing are decimating
our natural resources. Destruction of one species
causes repercussions in others that we cannot predict.
The creation of national parks in order to save one's
natural heritage can create pockets of wildlife reserve, a
genetic bank of invaluable proportions. Modern
medicine, agriculture, veterinary sciences have gleaned
enormous knowledge from plants and animals for treatments,
food supplies etc. Preserving countless species will,
in time, give us further opportunities to discover more
natural wonders. Natural habitats can never be
replaced by zoos Vertical dwelling is urgently needed
to stop this environmental degradation. Farmers, in
order to subsist, cut or burn forests to raise crops,
cattle, or for logging and to pay debts ( photo A, C)
Developing countries owed $2.28 trillion in 2005 in
international debt according to the World Bank in 2005’s
report. At 1% annual interest, the interest alone is
$22.8 billion annually which these countries could hardly
afford. Thomas Lovejoy, counsel to President Bush and
later to President Clinton and deputy chairperson for the
World Wildlife Fund recommended the novel idea: “Debt for
Nature and Development Swap”. The idea recommends that
countries or private organizations purchase part of their
debts, and in return the debtor countries conserve these
valuable lands to allow native species and plants to remain
in their natural habitats.

CLONING and ETHICS:Evolution has
learned through millions of years that survival of
the species depends on biodiversity.
Cloning is the opposite of genetic
development. We endanger genetic biodiversity
and progress of the species by encouraging
cloning. One end of the spectrum for example
is the amoeba. Amoebas clone
themselves with the exact same genetic material over
and over, so there is no chance for evolution and
biodiversity. Humans, in the other end,
survive by having genetic diversity. This is
done in order to strengthen the species,
assures new generations the ability to adjust to
environmental and life’s changes by never
replicating one’s same genes. It is because of
this that we never marry our own siblings or the
species would weaken. The Irish potato famine
that killed 2 million people could have been
prevented had there been a greater variety of
potatoes in their crops. Some varieties that would
not have been susceptible to the fungus that killed
the crops could have made the difference and
millions of people would have survived. However,
Ireland planted very few varieties, and none were
able to survive the blight, causing this
catastrophe. This example teaches us that
limiting genetic pools can be devastating to
populations and economies. Genetic engineering
is creating seeds and animals that are limited in
their genetic pools for they are replicated or
cloned, threatening the essence of biodiversity and
evolution.

In a world that lives with prejudice, racism and is facing
limiting families, genetic manipulation could lend itself to
people the likes of Hitler to use cloning for population
control and choosing only the ones they conclude are "ideal
prototypes" and eradicating those that are not the “chosen”
ones. Because of these reasons, human cloning is
unethical. The movie THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL is a
chilling reminder of what mankind is capable of dreaming up
in order to control the world.

Science uses animal, vegetable bacterial, viral,
microorganism’s DNA for diverse uses in cloning. In
this narrow scope, cloning is useful and ethical. For
example, some day, we will be able to clone microorganisms
that carry genetic material capable of producing certain
exact enzymes or substances necessary for our health that
can be introduced into humans who lack them. By
cloning these cells, one can assure pure standardized
material production that can be regulated and
lifesaving. The future of many branches of medicine is
in the hands of genetic engineering.

To think
that cloning a loved one would replace him/her is
folly. The clone will have the same genetic
material, but the circumstances surrounding it will not be
the same, thus it will never be able to replicate the
essence, "the spirit" of the loved one.

ABORTION:
Lack of knowledge of family planning, and poor mores show
that in 2002, the World Health Organization registered 46
million reported abortions worldwide, 20 million under unsafe
conditions. Maternal mortality from abortion is low in
developed countries, where the procedure is legal (0.2-1.2
deaths per 100,000 abortions). In developing regions
where abortion is illegal or highly restricted, abortion
mortality is hundreds of times higher than in
countries where these are legal (330 deaths per 100,000
abortions). The high mortality is due to "unsafe"
abortions. The World Health Organization defines
"unsafe abortion" as a procedure for terminating an unwanted
pregnancy that is performed by a person lacking the
necessary skills or in an environment lacking minimal
medical standards, or both. Abortions face varied
degrees of maternal and infant mortality. The USA
spends $13 billion/year for the expense of its unwanted
pregnancies, according to Profefssor James Trussell, PhD, a
Princeton University economist and director of the school's
Office of Population Research (ref B).An estimated 150 million women in developing
countries want to delay or stop childbearing, but cannot
afford contraceptives, are unable to find family planning
services readily because some governments will not provide
them, some because they fear their partner’s retaliation,
and some, and some find themselves pregnant because no
contraceptive method is perfect. According to the Alan
Guttmacher Institute annually, there are about 46 million
reported abortions worldwide. These represents 22% of
the 210 million pregnancies that occur yearly that we know
of, as often abortions are not reported. The Safe
Motherhood Initiative, launched by the United
Nations Population Fund UNFPA, UNICEF, WHO, UNDP, the
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the
Population Council provide contraceptive and family planning
aid, comprehensive education, information on sex
communicable diseases and prevention services and follow-up
care. Abortion is not morally accepted by some
religious organizations, carries mortality and morbidity,
and must not be considered a form of family planning.
Many women have physical and emotional scars from
this. To bring into the world a child where one does
not have food to feed it, funds to cloth or time to love it
because one’s time is already taken to make ends meet to
feed the other siblings that are already here, is a terrible
dilemma, something that best be prevented by family
planning. However, under the circumstances, facing an
unwanted pregnancy, if the woman chooses abortion based on
her personal belief, laws and governments must respect her
choice.
Statistics show how sex education makes a positive impact
in all aspects of its population. For example,
countries like Japan and Sweden, where sex education is
part of the school curriculum, have a much lower
incidence of communicable diseases, unwed mothers, rapes
and abortions when compared to th USA, where sex education
is not enforced countrywide (chart
1A, 2A, 3A, 4A).

1) Prevention by means of
education is the most practical of solutions for preventing
unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and
infant mortality. Education starts at home and a
person’s future happiness and success depend on parental
teachings, love and devotion to their children. According to a Canadian
Correctional Research, good family relations may play a more
significant role than criminal sanctions in deterring crime
or on legislating social mores. If marriage and good
parenting reduce the numbers of criminal offences, family
supports are much more important than legislation in
deterring crime and recidivism rates. This applies
also to promiscuity, drugs, rape, abortions and unwed
mothers. The Canadian report shows that people are
more concerned about losing their family's love and respect
than about being arrested or imprisoned. To expect
laws to replace good parenting is irresponsible and harms
lives. Sexual mores, responsibility and obligations
for respecting love, sex, marriage, and self, must be taught
at home. Parents who fail to educate their children in
these arenas face the sad consequences along with their
children and grandchildren. Many families will not
discuss sex education or responsible family planning at
home, yet expect their children to know about this and
are surprised when they fail. In a culture where
sex education is lacking, the government has to step in, and
teach basic principles to prevent social
disintegration. Current USA political thinking
believes that teaching sex education in schools encourages
promiscuity. This is not true as the facts in
the enclosed graph show. (Impact
of sex chart (A)(CHARTS K))

2) Sex Education
Parental, or to a lesser degree, institutional education is
the solution to prevent AIDS, unwanted pregnancies,
abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases and to avoid the
45 thousand children that die every day in third world
countries from disease and starvation. If families,
because of personal or religious reasons, prefer to teach
their children these concepts themselves, governments must
respect their wishes, but national testing must be a
requisite. Lack of knowledge in family planning, and
poor mores show that in 2002, the World Health Organization
registered 46 million reported abortions worldwide, 20
million under unsafe conditions. The USA
spends $13 billion /year for the expense of its
unwanted pregnancies according to Professor James Trussell,
PhD, a Princeton University economist and director of the
school's Office of Population Research (B).

Statistics show how sex education makes a positive impact
in all aspects of its population. Countries like
Japan and Sweden, where sex education is part of the
school curriculum, have a much lower incidence of
communicable diseases, unwed mothers, rapes and abortions
( chart 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A)

AIDS/HIV -
SIDA is growing worldwide in part due to insufficient funds
and lack of education. Lack of sex education is not
only costly in human suffering but in economic terms to tax
payers. Following is the average USA annual cost for
treatment of sexually communicable diseases: $9.3-15.5
billion in the mid-1990’s:

SEXUALLY COMMUNICABLE DISEASES PER 100,000

USA vs. SWEDEN

Infection and country

Rate (Per 100,000)

SEXUALLY COMMUNICABLE DISEASES
%/100,0000

Among 15-19 year
olds

Total population

15-19 to female/

Male Annual sexually transmitted
infections

All 15-19 year olds to total population

SYPHILIS

Total

Male

Female

Population

Sweden (1995)

0.6

1.2

0.0

0.8

†

0.76

United States

6.4

8.6

4.3

4.3

2.00

1.49

GONORRHEA

Sweden

1.8

2.0

1.5

2.8

1.31

0.63

United States

571.8

758.2

394.8

125.1

1.92

4.57

CHLAMYDIA

Sweden

569.6

921.0

235.2

156.0

3.9

3.7

United States

1,131.6

2,067.0

245.8

192.6

8.4

5.9

CHART 2A

( Printed
with Permission)

*Adolescent rates are calculated using
the number of infection cases at ages 15-19 per 100,000
populations CHART (3A)

CHART (4A)
(Printed with permission)

WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS:The United Nations
unanimously agreed in 1994 that overpopulation is the major
problem facing the world. However, they pointed out
that this cannot be solved without addressing women and
children’s rights. In a world where unwanted pregnancies
threaten the life of the mother, steal food from the
children already here, impose nations' expenses for their
sustenance that they cannot afford, it is unconscionable to
deny an abortion to the woman who wants to undergo said
procedure under safe and legal conditions.

Hunger forces some parents to use and
abuse their children. In some, poverty, lack of
education and women’s rights as well as worldly pressures
brings out machismo or abusive male control. Here are
some examples of what violations are done to women and
children as mentioned by the UN:

COMMON VIOLATIONS:

1)
About 60 million girls are” missing" mostly in Asia, as a
result of sex-selective abortions, infanticide or neglect.

2)
Domestic violence is a frequent cause of suicides among
women.

3) Rape
and other forms of sexual violence are increasing. Many
rapes go unreported because of the stigma— less than 3 % in
South Africa to about 16 % in the USA
report due to shame.

4) Two
million girls worldwide between ages 5 and 15 enter in the
commercial sex market per year.

5) At
least 130 million women have been forced to undergo female
genital mutilation.

6) The
majority of battered women worldwide are afraid of using
contraceptives for fear of spousal retaliation.

7)
Malnutrition contributes to more than half of children’s
deaths worldwide.

8) 70%
child labor is in subsistence agriculture. (2002)

9) 211
million, i.e. 1/6 the of the world’s children under age 15
works.

10)About 8.4
million children are in the worst forms of child labor:
bonded labor, military service, and drug trafficking and the
sex industry. Most common, especially in Asia, is forced and
bonded labor. In the developed world and Latin America, the
most prevalent is the sex industry.

One in four maternal deaths could be prevented by family
planning according to the US Center of Disease
Control. Maternal mortality from abortion is low in
developed countries, where the procedure is legal (0.2-1.2
deaths per 100,000 abortions). In developing regions
where abortion is illegal or highly restricted, abortion
mortality is hundreds of times higher than in
countries where these are legal (330 deaths per
100,000 abortions see Chart 5A). The high mortality is
due to “unsafe” abortions. The World Health
Organization defines "unsafe abortion" as a procedure for
terminating an unwanted pregnancy that is performed by a
person lacking the necessary skills or in an environment
lacking minimal medical standards, or both. Almost 20
million unsafe abortions occur each year (ref H).

PERINATAL CARE:
Pre and post partum infant and mother care is most important
for their health and well being, not to speak of the welfare
for others in the family, which overall influences the
national spirit. Now young girls are getting infected
with HIV and becoming mothers before reaching biological and
social maturation. Perinatal care includes finding and
making available effective methods for dual protection -
from HIV and other sexually transmitted infections and from
unwanted pregnancy. Dr. G. Brundtal, director of the
World Health Organization mentioned in 2002: “There were
between 6 to 8 million perinatal deaths yearly. This
can be greatly reduced by implementing basic reproductive
health approaches, including family planning, adequate diet,
prevention and management of maternal infections.
Alleviation of hunger and malnutrition is a fundamental
pre-requisite for poverty reduction and sustainable
development. More than 570 million of the world's
women suffer from anemia that complicates pregnancy and
affects infants too. Under-nutrition in-utero
permanently increases the risks of heart disease and stroke
in adult life. Improving nutrition of the whole family
is important. Long-term effects of fetal
under-nutrition could be a drawback that will be carried
forward through several generations. Iodine is one
such example. It is the main single cause of
preventable brain damage , goiter and vision loss. By adding
iodine to salt, we eliminate the problem” (95).

CONTRACEPTIVES:There are various forms
of contraceptive methods; none are 100% successful or safe.
Enclosed are summaries of how various of these methods
compare ( chart 6A)

A) NATURAL
FAMILY PLANNING: For religious or medical
reasons, some choose not to use contraceptives or barrier
methods for contraception but prefer these methods, called
“the Rhythm”, symptom-thermal (Billings Method) and Calendar
requiring periodic abstinence. These have the highest
incidence of pregnancy, as shown in the chart below.
The basic concept of these methods is that since healthy
women have regular cycles, and ovulation takes place during
mid cycle, abstinence during a 10 or more consecutive day
period during mid-cycle, will reduce the chances of unwanted
pregnancy. Day one starts when menstruation starts,
mid-cycle is usually around day 14 in a 28 day cycle.
In other words, abstinence has to be observed from day 10
through day 19 in a 28 regular menstrual cycling
women. Some women, however, have shorter or longer
cycles, thus the calculation must shorten or lengthen the
days of abstinence based on this fact. If the woman is
not regular, is ill or travels far, this will not work as
cycles alter under these circumstances.

B) BREAST FEEDING: Nursing
mothers are protected from pregnancy during the first 3-6
moths after delivery. Breast feeding, to work as a
contraceptive method, must be done by healthy women in an uninterrupted
fashion, provided no other food or liquid supplements are
given to the infant and maternal milk is not to be
given from a bottle according to Journal
Contraception, 1994. Maternal diet,
no matter how poor, will not diminish natural milk's
nourishment. Baby food companies discredit mother's
milk because of economic interest. Nothing in nature
is as healthy as breast milk. Breast-feeding decreases
maternal breast cancer and strengthens the mother child bond
and improves the child's immune system as well as its
psyche. for further reference read http://www.lalecheleague.org

C)MEDICAL CONTRACEPTIVES: Since the
advent of condoms and birth control pills, millions of
unwanted pregnancies and abortions have been avoided.
There are more efficacious methods now. For example:
Norplant, a contraceptive capsule implanted in the skin,
delivers a constant hormonal dose for a period of five
years. It can be removed with a small incision at any
time, and will not damage reproductive ability of the
user. The “patch” type of transdermal adhesive
contraception is popular. However, it stigmatizes the
user and often falls off with repeated washings. The
July, 2003 issue of Journal Contraception
mentions that for adult women, the IUD Copper T and Merina
hormone-releasing intrauterine device are less expensive and
more effective than birth control pills, spermicidal, and
diaphragms according to James Trussell, PhD, a Princeton
University economist and director of the school's Office of
Population Research. Merina and IUD Copper T are about
99% effective in preventing pregnancies. According to
the Journal of the American Medical Association,
The IUD Copper T remains effective for up to ten years and
the Merina 5 years. Professor Creinin, an Obstetrics
and Gynecologist at the University of Pittsburgh School of
Medicine and director of its Family Planning and Research
division, mentions: “IUDs are incredibly safe, incredibly
effective, and easy to use. They are extremely popular
in other countries, but not widely used in the U.S.
This is likely because in the USA only about 20% of
insurance companies cover their costs”. Tubal ligation
is irreversible and at times can produce adhesions.
Professor Trussel calculates that the USA spends $13 billion
per year for handling unwanted pregnancies alone.No figures
are available of what the cost would be for the impact of
these births after infancy on society. Often these
children are unwanted, and born into families with poor
incomes where there is no time for them. Some of these
children, because of this, end up in institutions, have
health problems, face poor education, end up on drugs, have
psychological problems, face the wrong side of law,
end up in a life of crime and/or jail. If one
calculated these costs, in light that the planet that is
running out of resources, not to teach sex education and
withhold assistance in family planning is unethical (87).

D) Morning After Pill
method is recommended by the American College of
Obstetricians in case of emergency when no contraceptive
methods had been used. This decreases between 75-89 %
of pregnancies. Of these, Preven and Plan “B” are the
most popular in the USA. These pills require a
prescription. They must be taken as soon as possible,
no later than 72 hours after unprotected sex, and again 12
hours after the first set of pills. Another emergency
method is to take 2 regular birth control pills within the
first 72hrs, and again two more 12 hrs after the first set
of pills. Repeated use of emergency contraception is
not advised, for it will upset the normal hormonal cycle of
the user since it provides a sudden surge of hormones.

There
was interest to determine if availability of the “morning
after pills” would encourage promiscuity. The January,
5 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Associationmentions a trial that included more
than 2,100 women aged 15 to 24 found essentially the same
rates of contraceptive use, sexually transmitted infections,
and pregnancies among those who were given a supply of the
pill to take as needed, those who could get it directly from
a pharmacy, and those who had to go to a clinic, proving
that ready availability is not impacting sexual mores (87).

SUMMARY OF CONTRACEPTIVE
EFFICACY 2004

% OF UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES
PER YEAR USA CHART 6A(Printed with permission)

CONTRACEPTIVES: ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
Planned Parenthood of America reports that for each dollar
of government subsidy for birth control, it saves $11.10
in other medical and welfare costs. The savings do not
include calculations for later live medical, educational
and nutritional costs that arise from unwanted pregnancies
or the ancillary social needs of numbers of children as
they mature. In the USA only about 20% of health insurers
cover the cost of birth control pills and other
contraceptives, thus aggravating the population
explosion. See reference:(ref O) and (ref
P)

THE ETHICS OF WOMEN, and CHILDREN'S RIGHTS:
In 2002, the president of the World Health Organization, when
speaking about the welfare of women and children said: “There
is no room for complacency. There are urgent tasks
but it only works when the commitment comes from the
president or prime minister. The whole country must
be able to speak openly about the danger, the causes and
the solution. Lack of open discussion and laws not
providing protection for reproductive rights are not only
unethical and a breach of basic human rights, but
also lead to serious social and health problems for
societies. We must assist our colleagues in such
countries so that they do not become unwitting or coerced
accomplices to such practices. These services are among
the essential services of the minimal health system of every
country.” It includes finding and making available the
effective methods for dual protection - from HIV and other
sexually transmitted infections and from unwanted
pregnancy”. Contrary to this goal, in 2002, the US
Government, however, announced a $15 billion package to fight
AIDS, requiring that these funds be given so long as AIDS
clinics are separated from family planning clinics.
Stand alone AIDS clinics could cause public shunning to many
for the community would now know who is seeking AIDS
help. In the past, this was provided by healthcare
facilities, where all reproductive, and prenatal needs were
given, so one would not stand out in the crowd. This
idea thus deters many from visiting these facilities, which is
medically unethical (Activities since 2000).
The white house cut funding for family planning earmarked by
congress to the United Nations’ Fund for Population
Activities in 2000. The UNFPA estimates that the
withheld funds could have helped prevent as many as 2
million unwanted pregnancies and nearly 800,000 abortions;
4,700 maternal deaths and over 77,000 infant and child
deaths in many countries. The funds could also have
been used to scale up promising maternal health and
HIV-prevention efforts. If we do not make health, sex
education and family planning a priority, we might end up
like China that waited too long, and now forces its people
to limit families to only one child per family in order to
avoid starvation. The present devastation in Niger
shows how lack of family planning is causing millions to
flee their land, and starve to death. To see the impact of
withholding sex educations in schools, we see how this is
causing an alarming rate of sexually transmitted diseases,
unwanted pregnancies and abortions in the USA (See above
discussions in various fields related to reproductive and
sexual mores and charts A1,A2,A3,A4).

ENERGY and POLITICS . Without energy, civilization as we know it
would stop to a stand still causing chaos and economic
havoc. This fact was emphasized during the October
symposium on energy and the environment by the University of
Michigan in October, 2002. For example, England on
September 15, 2000, after cutting off petrol at the pumps
for three (3) days, went into a total economic and social
arrest. (See the ECONOMIST magazine
,September 15, 2000 or (107). It is because of scenarios like these that
we devote so much emphasis to this chapter. Affordable, replenishable and environmentally safe
fuel is paramount for economic stability and prosperity for
all nations. This is one of the biggest challenges for
the future of civilization, aside from overpopulation and
environmental degradation.
Humanity flourished with the advent of antibiotics,
vaccines, and by the industrial revolution (see graph in our
home page:http://www.lifewatchgroup.org/).The latter, fueled by
coal, oil and hydroelectric power has caused mankind to be
addicted to energy. Now oil’s availability has peaked
and shortly will be dwindling rapidly causing economic
dislocations (30, 31).The keynote
speaker in his address to the National Energy Technology Lab
of the US Department of Energy on February, 2005 said:
"Liquid fuel prices and price volatility will dramatically
and without timely mitigation affect the economic, social,
and political costs to unprecedented levels.
Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and
demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be
initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.”
Unfortunately, since no steps have been taken to mitigate
this, time is not on our side. The reason is
political. The fossil fuel industry is the most
powerful political machinery affecting world policies
today. It is against their interest to warn us of
impending shortages, to encourage conservation or to use
alternate fuels. President Jimmy Carter tried to take
our economy toward fuel conservation and oil independence,
and in so doing, paid the price by being maneuvered out
office. The Journal Science (December,
1972) confirms his ideas when it calculates that if we
would cut our energy consumption by ¼ we would not have
any significant changes in life-style. This,
however, would not be popular with the coal or oil cartels.

The world is hostage to the oil industries. The threat of
another Arab oil embargo can bring the world economy to a
standstill if the oil supply is cut off, even for a few
days: This sort of vulnerability is unacceptable. The
oil and coal industry have powerful economic connections
with politicians, who would not dare upset this most
rewarding relationship. Therefore, no significant
steps to encourage the establishment of policies that make
alternative fuels price competitive are under way.
This is ever more pronounced in the case of the use of
nuclear energy. Fossil fuel industry’s propaganda
against nuclear energy is shrill and well orchestrated (see:
Politics of Nuclear Fuel in this page). If we realize
the staggering cost in health, military security and
subsidies our oil dependence is costing, we would realize
how costly this dependence is to our economies. If we,
however, would discourage subsidies for the oil industry and
divert the subsidy funds for alternative fuels, these would
become competitive, would break our oil dependence and
diminish our concern from Arab or terrorist control that
could cut off our fossil fuel supplies. If we input
these calculations and subtract the cost that our health and
environmental degradation fossil fuels cost our world, we
would realize that our current political path is against our
national interest. But since the politicians are
being economically and politically rewarded to keep the
status-quo, the voters are the losers.

The economic impact of the OPEC is enormous. It has
received about $7 trillion USD from the USA’s consumers
alone in the last 30 years by keeping the oil prices above
their true value ( The Economist Magazine
October, 2003). If we add the cost of the recent
Afghan and Iraqi wars, this adds 208 billion and the
worldwide annual cost from global warming is and additional
annual $300 billion plus countless other additional costs
that this industry brings from health effects, oil spills,
acid rain, etc. These sums do not include the price of
US military presence to protect the oil producing countries
in that span of time or the sums from subsidies (data. from
figures calculated by the US congress), and the global
losses in crops, diseases, and pollution that fossil fuels
are causing; the sums are staggering (32).

China’s National Environmental
Protection Agency (NEPA) recently released a report that
shows China has annual losses of $13 billion USD due to acid
rain alone. Dr. Rowland, a member of the National
Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences and Noble Laureate calculates that China, alone,
will have to spend $90 billion USD to curb acid rain.(33).

The most serious impact of our
fossil fuel dependence is the price in human lives, health
and environmental damage(34).
A University of Michigan report shows the present
exponential increase in human deaths caused by fossil fuel
pollution and points out that: the by-products that
form from the burning of fossil fuels can exist in the air
for indefinite periods of time. They can enter the
blood stream, irritating the lungs and carry with them toxic
substances such as heavy metals and pollutants. Over a
lifetime of continued exposure, those affected could become
afflicted with fatal asthma attacks and other serious lung
conditions. The World Resources Institute reports that
between the years of 2000 and 2020, 8 million additional
deaths worldwide will occur due to this impact if we fail to
change our present conditions. In 1990 alone,
respiratory diseases were a leading cause of disabilities
and illnesses worldwide. Because the contamination is
growing at an exponential rate, minor reductions now will
greatly reduce the number of lives lost in the future.(35).

In the 2004 Journal Nature, Thomas et
al, in the largest multinational work regarding global
warming caused by fossil fuel use, reports that the
predicted range of climate change by 2050 will place 15 to
35 percent of the 1,103 species studied at risk of
extinction, and that when extrapolated globally, they
conclude that more than a million species will face
extinction. Countless dollars are lost due to
environmental damage caused by global warning
worldwide. The rising number of weather related
diseases is charted by the US Environmental Protection
Agency. (36).
To add up all the economic losses caused by exponential
population growth, its fuel consumption, and our poor
planning to address climatic changes, the figures will add
up to trillions of dollars, something that politicians
choose to ignore.

Not long ago, government and tobacco lobbyists were
colluding in the pretense that there was no real scientific
proof that tobacco caused illness and death. The
leadership of the US Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop
finally exposed this truth and tobacco companies have been
the subject of countless suits for hiding the truth.
The fossil fuel industry follows the same tactics as tobacco
companies, making allegations that global warming is not a
real factor and that the losses are unrelated to fuel
emissions. Already, EPA Director Whitman, during the
Bush administration, is now being sued by the state of
Massachusetts for ignoring the clean air act while she held
office. This is the beginning of such awareness that
is slowly coming to light and we predict that the industries
that do no heed the clean air and water standards will
suffer the same fate as tobacco companies. The Prayer
of this suit states: “By so violating Section 304(ref a)(2)
of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(ref a)(2), EPA is
unlawfully increasing the likelihood of harming the economic
interests of the Plaintiff States ( Massachusetts), is
unlawfully increasing the likelihood and severity of damage
to property owned by each of the Plaintiff States, is
unlawfully denying residents of each of the Plaintiff States
the benefits due them under the federal Clean Air Act, and
is unlawfully subjecting residents of each of the Plaintiff
States to increased risks of harm to human health, welfare,
and general economy that are associated with the continued
unregulated emissions of carbon dioxide” (37).

The damages fossil fuels have brought
reflected by global warming has caused great damage to us
and to many species. The damage is already irreparable for
some species that have become extinct, and many will follow
by the time we switch to alternate energies. In our
chapter on the politics of fossil fuels and nuclear energy,
one will see why admitting the fact that there is indeed
global warming is not popular among the fossil fuel
companies, as it will negatively affect their earnings. This
is one of the reasons that the USA reneged on the Kyoto
Accord to curb air and water pollution (63).

I)
FOSSIL FUELS: Exponential
population growth and unchecked fossil fuel use is causing
global warming. Fossil fuel, a finite sources of
energy, is rapidly dwindling. WE HOWEVER WILL RUN OUT OF
ENVIRNOMENT BEFORE WE RUN OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS as per the
reports from the University of Michigan. Worldwide,
40% of all energy comes from oil, 26% from coal and 24% from
natural gas. Saudi Arabia and four of its neighbors
provide 2/3 of all oil supplies. Because oil is
dwindling, this is causing us to turn to the more plentiful
natural gas now being used by about 90% of all new power
plants in the U.S. In addition, Big Oil is looking to
hydrogen as the next major fuel source. Hydrogen can
be made from a number of raw materials, but the cheapest is
to make it from natural gas. The problem is that
supplies of natural gas in the lower 48 states have been
declining since 1976, when gas production in the U.S.
reached its Hubert’s Peak. This fact and the USA’s
lack of infrastructure to import sufficient natural gas from
abroad is reflecting dramatic price hikes, according to R
Hirsch: Peaking of World Oil Production:
Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management.

The fragility of our economy is such that now that we do not
have the 10 years advance notice to restructure our fuel
needs, we urgently must encourage conservation and plan for
alternative fuel supplies. In spite of these facts,
there is no political will to face the problems, and
sometimes, politicians misinform us about the facts.
Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve Bank,
worried in June, 2003 that price spikes in natural gas
prices could wipe out any economic recovery in the
U.S. On April 27th, 2005 Greenspan urged more access
to natural gas, insinuating that there are vast untapped
worldwide supplies, something that is misleading. (38).

(A) PETROLEUM,
NATURAL GAS and HOW MUCH IS LEFT?:
In 1994 the University of Colorado correctly reported that
the USA would run out of oil in about 15 years, gas in 30
years and coal in 200 years at the present and future rate
of consumption. This report takes into account the
future population growth and that 58% of supplemental oil is
imported. According to the US Energy Information
Administration’s 1995 Report, all the world's oil reserves
will be exhausted within 43 years, gas within 66 years and
coal within 150-235 years at the expected rate of the
population’s increasing demands. These reports take
into account fossil fuel already discovered and yet to be
discovered. These figures seemed unreal but they have
now proven to be true. The latter data has also been
confirmed by OPEC, OECD and British Petroleum. See charts (D and E). In a July, 2000
article of the JournalScience,
Kerr mentions that a new 5-year assessment of the store of
oil bodes ill for the United States.

The graph(D) below
(reference of the "Hubert Curve,") is based on an Ultimate
Recovery of conventional oil of 1750 GB (Giga = Billion
barrels) and depicts alternative scenarios of
production. The Swing Case assumes a price leap when
the share of world production from a few Middle East
countries reaches 30%. This is expected to curb
demand, leading to a plateau of output until the Swing
countries reach the midpoint of their depletion when
resource constraints force down output at the then depleted
rate. [From The Twenty First Centuries, the World's
Endowment of Conventional Oil and its Depletion, by Dr.
Colin Campbell, 1996] In the 2000 meeting of the Energy
Institute of the Americas in Oklahoma, M. Simmons admitted:
“We have an Energy Crisis as too many key parts of the world
have run out of the ability to increase electricity demand,
natural gas demand and petroleum demand. All three prime
sources of energy converged into a limit against further
growth almost simultaneously” (41).

(GRAPH D) Hubbert
Peak Curve (Printed with permission)

(10, 12) and Graph E,
(39, 40) (Printed
with permission)

Facing high gas
prices at the pump makes many think that this is a political
manipulation by Big Oil and that soon the prices will go
down. In 2004 some voters cast for continuation of our
war in Iraq hoping this would bring oil prices down.
According to the results of a study by the London-based Oil
Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC), the growing oil demand and
dwindling oil supplies are the real cause of rising prices.
The enclosed graph (D), courtesy of
Hubbert Peak will help understand the dynamics of oil
production, prices and availability taking into mind the
growing consumption of known and untapped fossil fuel
sources.As oil production drops, natural gas is gaining
popularity since it is cheaper than gasoline and propane and
is relatively environmentally friendly. A natural gas
vehicle may cost slightly more than the non-NGV
version. Canada offers grants and rebates that allow
offsetting for the vehicles’ prices. The fuel costs
show immediate savings. These vehicles require less
frequent maintenance due to cleaner burning fuel.
Nevertheless, this still has a negative environmental impact
due to CO2 emission (42).

The question, however, is not really whether we have or
do not have oil to burn. The question is what oil is doing
to our health, environment, and economy, for we will run
out of environment before we run out of fossil fuels.
This was emphasized during the symposium on energy and the
environment presented in October, 2002 by the University of
Michigan. In July, 2005 the G 8 Summit had all
members, except for the USA, agreed that global warming and
the Kyoto accord are urgent in their agenda. However,
the current US administration keeps refusing to see the
implications of postponing the addressing of this problem of
clean air and water that the Kyoto accord requires.
Contrary to these facts, the US Senate voted to allow
drilling in the Alaska natural park as a “remedy” to
increase its own oil supplies, perpetuating our oil
dependence instead of legislating conservation and alternate
fuels. The Alaskan wells will take over 10 years to
reach production and will produce about 2 years of the USA’s
present consumption of oil supply, according to the May,
2005 issue of Scientific American. If
however we opted for fuel efficiency, it has been
calculated that improving gas efficiency by 3 gallons per
mile, the US would save PER DAY what the Alaska oil field
would produce in its entire peak year, something our
leaders do not want to encourage.(43).

(B) COAL Coal fueled
the industrial revolution transforming our civilization
forever. Coal is the world’s most plentiful cheap
source of fossil energy, but it is dirty. About 56% of
the US electricity is coal generated and more so
worldwide. Coal plants, according to the National
Council on Radiation Protection and (NCRP) Reports No. 92
and No. 95 show that the radioactive exposure’s effective
dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from
nuclear plants. Coal combustion emits not only uranium
and thorium but also radium, radon, polonium, bismuth, and
lead. Also, radioactive potassium-40, mercury,
arsenic, silicon, calcium, chlorine, lead, sodium, plus
aluminum, iron, lead, magnesium, titanium, boron, chromium
and others are continually dispersed into millions of tons
of coal combustion by air and water, causing disease and
death. According to the (NCRP), the average radioactivity
per short ton of coal is 17,100 millicuries/4,000,000 tons,
i.e., for example, in 1982 the total release of
radioactivity from 154 coal plants in the United States was
2,630,230 millicuries. Extrapolating these
calculations worldwide, the projections from 1937 through
2040 can be determined to have a release of radioactivity
2,721,736,430 millicuries! (44) Although
not a fair comparison, one could calculate that this sum of
radioactivity would represent 1.3 atomic bombs per year or
135 atomic bombs in that period of time (Hiroshima-type
20,000 ton atomic bomb based on a study performed for a
hypothetical global nuclear war (P.R. Ehrlich, et. al.,
“Long-Term Biological Consequences of Nuclear War”, Journal
Science, 222, 1293 (1983)

Fossil fuel emissions are also changing weather patterns,
causing more numerous hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, forest
fires, and mud slides, increasing global temperatures that
are, in turn, causing desertification and altering
habitats. According to Professor B. Cohen of the
University of Pittsburgh, coal plant emissions are
responsible for about 100,000 deaths a year (45).

Coal mining requires vast land excavation, thus causing
ecological disruption. There have been no incentives
for coal companies to maximize their efficiency.
Studies show that they can be optimizing their efficiency up
to a maximum of 8%. New “clean coal emission”
technology that captures CO2 emissions, controlling mercury
and radioactive materials are slowly being
implemented. Since this is costly, many will not
implement these regulations, especially in third world
countries. In order to impose emission reduction we
must impose tariffs to their products to offset our cost of
our national pollution control. Not doing so will
encourage their pollution and makes for unfair
competition. To expect other countries to adhere to
the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gases is difficult for
the USA because, as President Bush said in a 2001 speech:
“For America, complying with those mandates would have a
negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price
increases”. So, in other words, he said NO to
clean air and no to clean water as per the Kyoto
Protocol. The USA refuses to accept the big picture
and shrugs off our debilitating oil dependence at the
cost of its national security, its health and economy.
The losers are mankind and the environment.

(II)HYDROELECTRIC POWER:
About 25% of the world’s energy needs are
supplied by hydroelectric power and growing since it is
economical and “clean”. The USA relies on 11% of its
needs from this source. If we weigh the real impact of
hydroelectric power, however, we realize that harnessing
rivers upsets the ecosystem and destroys the flooded
land. For example, Egypt's Aswan Dam studies reported
in the Journal Science, April, l988, that
conservatively, within eighty years from now the dam's
effect will cause the sea level to rise about one meter,
leaving the delta region submerged within 30 Km off the
coast. The dam is trapping its silt, causing
impoverished crops with negative long term impact on their
agriculture. The dam brought a higher standard of
living to Egypt for now, as well as a more controlled
irrigation but its long term effects are negatively
impacting the entire region due to its environmental
destruction. Hydroelectric use is so popular that
man’s redistribution of natural water sources is affecting
even our orbit’s gyrations!! (Smithsonian Institute) (46)

A)
Tidal Energy: Few
countries that have large tidal surges have harnessed
hydroelectric power with turbines successfully. This
is environmentally clean and economic, but unfortunately
very few nations have such wide tidal surges worth
harnessing.

B)
Ocean Wave Power
can be an endless source of power. A
company called Power Buoy advertises that it has equipment
whose total operating cost of generating power from an OPT
wave power station is projected to be only (US) 3-4¢/ kWh
for 100MW systems and (US) 7-10¢/kWh for 1MW plants,
including maintenance and operating expenses, as well as the
amortized capital cost of the equipment. It is
currently working in New Jersey, USA. Other companies
are making progress in this arena but it is uncertain, if
indeed, they will be able to bridge the gap of fossil fuels
and exactly what their impact on the environment will be as
miles of shore will be occupied for this process(47).

III)NUCLEAR: Currently, most
electricity in the US comes from coal and nuclear power.
All nations who presently have nuclear facilities
produce nuclear fuel from specialized reactors where
plutonium is irradiated, thus allowing for an infinite
source of nuclear fuel. In order to meet the
requisites established by the Kyoto accord on clean
emissions, M Stewart, President of the Canadian Nuclear
Association, extols the virtues of atomic energy as a source
of clean energy that will make it possible to fulfill the
agreements established during the Kyoto
accord (48.49).The same conclusions have been
pointed out during the October symposium on energy during
the 2002 October meeting at the University of Michigan
When weighing the dangers of fossil fuels and hydroelectric,
atomic generated power is the safer, cleaner and cheaper
choice and is not subject to political Arab whims.
Another benefit is that Nuclear Power's ability to replenish
itself with breeder reactors will not continue taxing our
planet's limited resources. In our chapter on “the
politics of Nuclear Power” we explain why mankind is so
afraid of nuclear power and how this fear has been planted
by fossil producing companies.

All living forms have, through the millennia, adjusted to
pollutants and radiation as part of living on earth.
The earth’s core has radioactive uranium, the sun emits
nuclear particles, and from another aspect, every time we
breathe we exhale C02. Every time we wash
our hair we pollute etc., etc. However, when we
multiply the amounts of pollution caused by daily human
activities of 6.3 billion people and to 3 additional billion
people that will be born soon, the impact to our planet is
beyond the ability of the planet to cleanse itself. The
nuclear emissions are insignificant in comparison to all
other sources of pollution. Nuclear fuel is also
relatively inexpensive and if properly managed, is safe.

The following chart shows samples of nuclear energy price
per kilowatt hour, and explains why Japan, the USA and
France are its top users. Notice that Japan prefers
nuclear even though, there, it is not the cheapest of energy
sources because they value their environment.

Some comparative electricity generating cost
projections for year 2005-2010

(Printed with permission)+The
prices on the actual 2005 revision are incorporated in the
above chart.The projected chart above was
updated in 2005 by a joint report by the Nuclear Energy
Agency (OECD) and the International Nuclear Energy
Administration.

Part of the improvement in cost efficiency shown
in CHART E is due to increased nuclear plant capacity and
rising fossil fuel prices. The study did show that
nuclear power had increased its competitiveness since
1998. The graph reflects the cost of nuclear plant
construction costs ranging from US$ 1000/kW and the most
expensive, in Japan, with an international averaged
$1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW,
and gas plants at $500-1000/kW. The latter, however,
did not input the future fossil fuel prices; thus this
figure is questionable, not to speak of its sustainability
as prices continue to rise. The above chart actually
should reflect the following : At 5% discount rate nuclear
generating costs come out at EUR 2-4 cents/kWh depending on
country, coal 3-5 c/kWh, gas 4-6 c/kWh and wind up around 8
cents. Nuclear is cheaper than gas in all but one
case. At a 10% discount rate nuclear ranged 3-5
cents/kWh (except Japan: near 7 cents cheaper than coal in
seven of ten countries, and cheaper than gas in all but two
countries. The new EPR if built in Germany would
deliver power at about 2.38 c/kWh - the lowest cost of any
plant in the study (50, 51).

Nuclear
Waste: Nuclear
waste is a serious concern in the eye of the public and
education on the safety of this disposal is most important
in order to have public acceptance of this type of
energy. The United States’ EPA has a safe, well
thought out plan on how to dispose of spent fuels.
However, there is no political will to enforce its inception
(113). France has a
well-established nuclear waste management program that
should be copied. In the USA Yucca Mountain has been
earmarked as a site for safe disposal of nuclear spent
fuels. Unfortunately, due to irrational fear planted
in the public’s mind, locals refuse to accept this. In
the meantime, 43 states’ spent fuels keep piling up in
populated areas where the nuclear plants are – a dangerous
situation for communities for their storage is not as safe
as it ought to be and they are reaching their space
limits. The public must put pressure on its
representatives to send nuclear wastes to Yucca Mountain
where it well be handled safely (110).
In order to make nuclear waste safe, it has to be vitrified
and contained in shields for safe disposal, a process that
is well known and mature.

Regarding the 600 Megawatt electric and 1,400 Megawatt
thermal nuclear reactors; they have nuclear cores that,
under no circumstances, would a Chernobyl-like meltdown ever
take place. Their size and core design also ensure
that they cannot physically contaminate the environment even
if an accident would occur. The nuclear wastes are, as
mentioned before, later vitrified and contained in shields
for safe disposal. The USA has about a 300-year supply
of Uranium 238 already processed that can be successfully
used for nuclear breeder reactors, as done in France.
Breeder reactors are 25% more expensive in their outlay to
produce them. Full size reactors, although more
expensive to build than medium-sized ones, pay off in the
long run as these reactors are less expensive to operate.

Politics of Nuclear Power: It is our perception that fears of
atomic power have been planted by oil companies and
politicians with vested interests who do not want
alternative fuels, or nuclear to interfere in their fossil
fuels investments. Japan, the victim of the atom bombs
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is one of the greatest users of
nuclear energy – because they do not have oil they are not
pressured by political oil interest groups and not because
it is a masochist society. Japan knows that nuclear
plants, when properly managed, are safe, clean, economical
and are not subject to control by foreign powers.
Japan is one of the strongest world economic superpowers in
spite of its small size, due to good governance and sound
energy policies (52).

Fossil fuel companies use scare tactics in order to
control world perception against nuclear energy, its serious
competitor. The Chernobyl nuclear plant accident has
been used as an example of how “dangerous” nuclear power
is. The Chernobyl disaster was the only accident
in the history of commercial nuclear power where
radiation-related fatalities occurred. It killed 30
people, including 28 from radiation exposure.
According to the Uranium Information Centre of Melbourne,
Australia, it reports that the Chernobyl disaster caused an
additional 209 radiation exposure reactions, of which, 134
cases were confirmed (all of whom recovered). Nobody
off-site suffered from acute radiation effects. However,
large areas of Belarus, the Ukraine, Russia and beyond were
contaminated in varying degrees but no additional deaths
related to this have been reported to date. A
comprehensive report taking up to 10 years since this
accident occurred, can be viewed in the enclosed page:
(53)
and a report of 1995 by the World Health Organization in
Geneva concurs with these findings. Thyroid cancer, as
a result from this accident, representing 0.01% of the total
exposed population, has been cured, as this type of cancer
is curable (108). To put things into perspective, the
annual US death rate caused by motor vehicle accidents are
about 42,000. The world’s death rate due to motor
vehicles is far greater when added up. Automobile
accidental deaths are much more deadly than any
nuclear accident, however, we would never consider banning
vehicles in spite of their deadly impact (54).
The annual cost for traffic fatalities in
the USA alone is $ 230 billion dollars, not to
mention the emotional damage these cause (109) and as
another example, according to Professor B. Cohen of the
University of Pittsburgh, coal plant emissions are
responsible for about 100,000 deaths a year (45);Indoor
air pollution accounts for 1.8 to 2.7 million annual global
deaths. All data proves that nuclear fear is due to
fossil fuel companies' propaganda and not due to scientific
facts.

Nuclear generators can provide electricity for factories,
engines and electric motor vehicles. This will solve
most energy and pollution problems. Research and
incentives for shifting from fossil fuels to atomic
generators must be implemented; however, there is little
political will to do so. Presently, electric cars that
can go at 80 miles per hour for 120 miles at one sitting are
available. The acceleration rate is comparable to gas
fueled cars, while non-polluting and very quiet.
Electric cars available in the market, produced by various
car manufacturers, range in cost with an average of about
$20,000 dollars with clean air tax abatements. The US
Department of Energy and EPA estimate these to run at an
annual electrical cost of about $420 while gas powered cars
have an estimated annual cost of $696 with present fossil
fuel costs. If the demand grows and nuclear plants
produce the electricity, their prices will decrease.
Hybrid cars are on the rise, but their small size
discourages the US market as long distances and large trucks
frighten drivers and large frame vehicles are thus
preferred. The impact on high fuel costs will change
this situation shortly, however, as mass transportation and
urban city dwelling will be in vogue soon.

The economic burden of phasing out from fossil energy to
alternate fuels will not be as costly if the subsidies to
the fossil fuel companies are also phased out and finally
suspended and these funds are given as ABATEMENTS for using
alternate fuels to promote research and development to bring
down costs. The USA expense for the Afghan and Iraqi
wars for oil control ($208 billion in 3 years) could have
best been used for promoting better US Arab relations that
would ease terrorist threats, investing in family planning
and curbing global warming with much better results.

Nuclear
Proliferation:
Adrien Guelke and Brian Jenkins, two terrorism experts,
separately point out that there is no evidence that any
terrorist organization ever attempted to purchase a nuclear
weapon, besides, to deploy a nuclear bomb is tactically
complicated, way beyond any of the terrorist's organizations
means. It is because of this that terrorist attacks
limit themselves to car bombs (117). Since the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki no more world wars have taken place.
Realistically, nuclear bombs have proven to be the best
deterrent against nuclear war.

The argument that small nations will provide nuclear bombs
to terrorists, and therefore such nations must not have
nuclear plants, is a political manipulation of the
facts. Fear against nuclear proliferation is used as
a ploy to prevent nations from becoming independent from
fossil fuels. If nuclear was so dangerous, then how
is it that Japan, who during WWII suffered the atomic
blasts, is one of the largest users of nuclear
power? It is because it is safe and economical.

To avoid nuclear proliferation International laws must be
enforced so that countries obtaining nuclear fuel for
their plants from countries with nuclear processors must
be accountable for their spent fuel for reprocessing to
encourage recycling and avoid mishandling of wastes.
This, not because of fear of them selling the fuel to
terrorists, but in order to assure they are careful not to
mishandle the fuels and pollute the environment. Not
cooperating with accountability of their nuclear material
must be legislated as cause for closing the plants down
under international rules.

To avoid proliferation of surplus plutonium, immobilization
is the only technology that could be used. Surplus
plutonium must be treated as waste and has to be available
for international inspection, such as by the International
Atomic Energy Association (IAEA). Instead of going
forward with MOX option, the U.S. Government should:
ensure safe, long-term storage of plutonium as the highest
priority under international controls for ready inspection
and regulation (116).

Worldwide political pressure must demand that world powers
lift bans for obtaining loans for nuclear power to ensure
all nations the right to economic independence by way of
nuclear power. An international nuclear
regulatory commission should have vast nuclear power
worldwide and make all countries accountable to
international laws.

IV)
Electric: As shown below,
our world is lit by electricity, however due to poverty and
lack of infrastructure, about 50% of humanity lacks
electricity. The photo below taken at night, by virtue of
the lights, shows human population distribution (courtesy of
NASA) The photo however is not showing about 60% more
people that the planet actually has now. ( If you wish to
see in details the beauty of our planet at night, go to our
home page photo, push the click button, and see in detail
this photo. Use the side arrows to move from one continent
to another, sideways or up and down), Electricity is
run by hydroelectric, nuclear, coal or gas power. Oil is too
expensive, thus no power plant uses this as a source of
energy.

Photo D

(Printed with
permission of NASA 2004)

The night photo above shows
about 40% of the world's population since about 50% of
the population has no access to electricity and all lights
are not on.

(V)ALTERNATIVE FUELS:
Unfortunately, by 2005, no alternative fuel had been able to
compete in price with hydro, nuclear or fossil fuel
generated energy. Wind is the most competitive, but is
still expensive compared to these as shown in Chart F.

Table 1

Current Cots 2005

Technology

Island

Cost /energyKwh

Cents

Photovoltaics

Solar

Hawaii

21.9

Wind

Hawaii

04.8

FIT Table 2

Future cost 2014

Technology

Island

Cost/energy cents/kWh

Biomass

Hawaii

05.1

Geothermal

Hawaii

05.8

Hydroelectric

Hawaii

08.3

Photovoltaics

solar

Hawaii

16.8

Wind

Hawaii

04.5

GRAPH F(1 and 2) State
of Hawaii, Department of Business, Economic Development
& Tourism(55)

1)Wind: Of the renewable
energies, this source is the cheapest, therefore it is
gaining worldwide acceptance. In 2005, with the latest
equipment Hawaii is producing it at 4 cents per
kWh—establishing wind energy as a power source that is now
more affordable than natural gas. (56).
Harnessing wind power creates ugly landscapes and is idle
over 25% of the time depending on the location, due to
damaged blades, turbulence, is difficult to store and, when
idle, alternate sources of energy are needed. This
energy has proven to be destructive to birds. In order
to provide sufficient energy for large communities, large
areas of land need to be utilized. In Europe, citizens
are signing petitions to have these wind plants removed due
to all of the above reasons. In time, protective
barriers will solve the problems as we can ill afford
fossils (57).

2)
Shale oil: Shale is a fossil
fuel and causes the same ill effects as all other such
fuels. It is costly and requires massive amounts of
water for its extraction causing polluting debris and
landscape destruction. Canada had curtailed extraction
to a great extent because of these reasons (58).

3)
Gasohol: Gasohol, a
mixture of 10 % ethanol and 90 % regular petrol, is being
promoted as a cheaper, more environmentally friendly
fuel. FTI vice-chairman, Ninnart Chaithirapinyo, of
Thailand says it (Thailand) will phase out petrol and
replace it with gasohol by 2006. The “friendly
environmental” use of gasohol is elusive and raises an
ethical dilemma: If we were to turn to gasohol for our
energy needs, most forests would have to be cut down in
order to make room to cultivate corn, sugarcane and beets
that produces this fuel and in so doin we would be further
destroying the ecology, causing soil erosion and decimation
of biodiversity. If we fall short of providing enough
grain for people to eat, how can we justify “feeding” our
engines while people starve? And, where are we going
to find the soil to cultivate enough gasohol to fuel all our
energy needs? Gasohol is inefficient since it must be
supplemented by fossil fuel that accumulates.

4)
Solar: We all hope to see a way to use solar
technology , but to date, this has proven to be too
costly, thus making this impractical for our vast needs
The down side of solar also, is unpredictable and is
expensive to store and install. Solar nano-technology
is showing that, by means of sprays for roofs and walls of
outer building wall applications that it will capture solar
energy, thus diminishing use of other energies.
Unfortunately, this is about 20 years behind in development
and expensive. Subsidies for fossil fuel generation
make alternate fuels less economical. Even if these
subsides were lifted, solar is still not economic. Due
to its poor portability, down-time alternate fossil fuels
needed to pick up during their down-time, add to global
warming (59).

The best contribution of solar, to date, is in thermal water
surface heating. Average costs depend on sunny to
cloudy regions; vary from the least at 8 cents/Kwh to 12
cents/Kwh. In order to run their photovoltaic
collectors, toxic material (such as cadmium, arsenic and
gallium) are required and these remain toxic forever.
Therefore, their disposal is of great concern. Solar
reflectors needed to fuel large populations can disrupt air
travel, and if misdirected, can cause eye (retinal)
burns, Require large land parcels limits their
economic yield and the unpredictability of sunshine is not
ideal.

(5)
Hydrogen:
This source of electricity is created by electrolyzing water
in order to produce hydrogen and oxygen.
Hydrogen-based energy always involves conversion of the
methane process or electricity (generated by fossil fuels,
nuclear, solar or wind). In the case of water
electrolysis, modest advances have been made to produce
hydrogen fueled vehicles. This also has been employed
to run the hardware of the space shuttle. Utilizing
solar cells to power the process is environmentally friendly
according to Cooper Union's Professor Hollenberg.
However, cars fueled in this fashion hold an apparatus that
is heavy. Another source of Hydrogen has been
experimented with by using genetically modified
organisms. One wonders, if there is exuberant growth
of these organisms, and accidents occur, what will their
impact be on the environment? There is, however, a
great deal of interest in using hydrogen rather than oil as
a means of storage and transport of energy. To date,
hydrogen is inefficient to produce, expensive to store,
transport and convert back to electricity. The
Fischer-Tropsch process of creating liquid hydrocarbons is
possibly an alternative solution to the liquid transport
fuels dilemma, making much better use of the existing
distribution and storage infrastructure than hydrogen..

POLAR CAPS, GLOBAL
WARMING AND CLIMATE:In 2010, the US National Academy of
Sciences stated: "There is compelling
comprehensive, and consistent objective
evidence that humans are changing the
climate in ways that threaten our societies
and the ecosystems on which we depend."

WORLD’S TEMPERATURE RISE
NASA’S map shows world temperatures tracked
from 1884 through 2009, an unequivocal rise
in temperatures, which is now
confirmed to be from human activities.
These are due to burning of fossil fuels,
deforestation, global wrming that is melting
polar caps, mountain snow and
glaciers.Prior periods of earth’s
warming and cooling were not due to
human activities. For example, in 2010,
temperature rise in northern Russia
and Alaska caused fires that decimated vast
territories. Each time we breathe, turn on a
light, start an engine ,burn fuels or trees,
CO2 is produced, warming the
atmosphere. Trash, biomass and animals
produce methane, which produce TWENTY times
more heat than CO2. Fertilizers,
refrigerants, and industrial processes emit
nitrous oxide, which cause 300 times more
heating than C02. All add up, causing
environmental changes, harming us all.

The National Research Council
of the National Academies reported in 2005 that “global
warming” is taking place unequivocally, partially due
to human activities, but namely due to fossil fuel emissions
and deforestation. The progressive water shortage,
decimation of land due to human use and abuse, soil erosion
and pollution are causing weather pattern changes.
Storms are more frequent and hurricanes are more
inclement. Tornadoes, floods, mud slides, and forest
fires are adding to the planet’s devastation that will
eventually cause the planet to become uninhabitable(62).
Global warming can be curbed immediately by conservation,
and in the long range, by changing from fossil fuel to wind
and nuclear energy and other alternate sources (Details of
why we say that nuclear is safe are mentioned in the chapter
on energy).

NASA shows a temperature rise of 0.4C
in the last 25 years. This small increment
has caused many glaciers and huge portions of artic ice to
melt. An increment of 5 degrees is expected
in the next 150 years! Following is the Rhone glacier
in Europe in 2003 as compared to 1850.

The world community must
declare the polar caps as sanctuaries because their
thermoregulation is life sustaining. Sparing this
habitat will be a priceless investment for our future.
According to the United Nations Environmental Agency report
from Arenday, Norway, it calculates that global temperature
change will cost $300 billion dollars/year in losses
worldwide (64). To open the Tsongas
National Park in Alaska close to the polar caps for oil
drilling, however, would disrupt plant and animal wildlife
with long term repercussions. This additional
pollution to our atmosphere is illogical. The idea of
the World Wildlife Fund, for Sweden and Holland etc., to
purchase national debts of debtor countries in exchange for
assured preservation of natural habitats can be a solution
to the budget deficits of debtor countries, decreasing the
ecological disintegration. Creditor nations must
forgive loans in exchange for a nation's promise to preserve
their wildlife and forests (65).Climate
change brought about by global warming is causing migration
of species, some plants are disappearing in some zones and
are moving to higher latitudes where climates are
cooler. This shift in climate will also affect
populations and ensue human migrations. In the July,
2005 G8 Meeting, all countries disagreed with President
Bush’s disinterest in upholding the Kyoto Accord, pointing
out to him the seriousness of the progressive deforestation,
water shortages, decimation of land due to human use and the
depletion of food due to demand outpacing supply. This
will cause the planet to become uninhabitable within 100
years unless we address these problems now.

WEALTH, HUNGER AND PEACE: Families,
like nations, more often than not become poor due to
excessive numbers of children, poor education and poor
governments- management. For example, Germany with few
children and Uganda with too many, are examples of that
spectrum. The ethics of hunger were mentioned earlier
and pointed out that hunger is caused mainly by unethical
politicians and inept governments. Some claim that
food shortages are due to political reasons, which to some
extent is now true. Soon, however, it will be due to
the planet’s inability to continue sustaining the growing
populations, for our demands are far outpacing the planet’s
ability to supply our needs.

Hunger causes war, migrations and the de-stabilizing of
affluent societies due to the influx of hungry hoards, CNN
television is replete of visions of Niger that illustrates
this point. History is full of such examples. To
ignore other people's hunger is to jeopardize one's own
security and wealth. Food and resource shortages will
cause internal instability and ultimately drive countries to
war. Wars and famine paradoxically cause greater
numbers of births, for man overcompensates in crisis; unlike
most animal species that halt or decrease reproduction when
there are food shortages or stress (66).
Mankind resorts to sex because it finds solace in it and is
a form of stress relief (67).
Children, the innocent by-products, later pay the
consequences of their parent's carelessness. The graph
compiled by the UN and the international census illustrates
this human response after World War I and WW II causing
"Baby Boom" explosions (See population graph in our cover
page (http://www.lifewatchgroup.org).
Robert McNamara, ex-US Secretary of Defense and later,
President of the World Bank, points out that "the
exponential population growth is so far out of balance that
this will impose heavy penalties on individuals as well as
nations. Ultimately, this will impose coercive
measures of fertility regulation. This can be avoided
by increasing knowledge and availability of
contraception. If such measures are not made
available, the penalties to the poor and nations will be
enormous and the ripple effect will inevitably extend to the
rich as well".

Wealth is amassed in nations who promote free
enterprise. Such examples are Japan, at one end of the
spectrum, giving people the greatest economic incentive and
companies who give employees a share of the profits, job
security and take part of their company's decision-making,
increase productivity and insure a sound economy. In
his scenario, there is a sense of teamwork and
self-worth. It is this spirit that allows companies to
survive even through hard times. At the other end of
the spectrum is communism where nationalization of
industries – the usurpation of business and industries by
the government which is what communist Russia did in the
last 60 years - is proof of how to destroy an economy.
Russia collapsed in bankruptcy, ending its communist
ideals. There is a car bumper sticker that says: “If
you want the MAFIA to go out of business, have the
government run it" because governments are notorious for
their poor business sense. Even China has learned to
allow free enterprise and is growing into a very powerful
economy. Social welfare states such as Sweden keep
business in the hands of the people. But, in order to
maintain its social -welfare systems, such nations have high
taxation, diminishing differences between the rich and
poor. This type of government allows for a more
egalitarian society. This assures better education,
negligible poverty, universal health insurance and a low
crime rate, thus creating a sense of national well
being - a priceless commodity. The US tax payers have
been made believe that taxation is bad for the nation. This
notion can be dispelled by the statistics shown in Chart
K where three developed countries, Japan, USA and
Sweden fare under their political thinking. The charts
clearly show how the USA has lost its lead when comparing
with the others in the last decades. If a few rich
amass the wealth at the expense of the majority, then a
country cannot be considered a great nation. The
wealth of a nation is measured by a sense of egalitarianism,
a sense of true democracy, and social well being. Good
governments are measured by their ethics and for doing what
is best for the majority. USA Conservatives explain
that the USA is in poor shape due to a long line of
democratic “liberal” presidents. Both Sweden and Japan
are more liberal than the USA. If a liberal
government was bad for a nation then why are Sweden and
Japan doing better than the USA? One of the
reasons is that, in the USA, corporate social interests
are being put above the national interests. Wealth
in the USA is getting to a narrower few while its poor
population is growing and the masses are becoming more and
more disenfranchised.

Sex education is more prevalent
in Europe than America where conservatives oppose it on
the grounds that it condones sexual behavior. The
following statistics show the unintended consequences of
this policy:

TAXES:The US tax payers have
been made believe that taxation is bad for the nation.
This notion can be dispelled by the statistics shown in
Chart K where three developed countries, Japan, USA
and Sweden fare under their political thinking. The charts
clearly show how the USA has lost its lead when comparing
with the others in the last decades. If a few rich
amass the wealth at the expense of the majority, then a
country cannot be considered a great nation. The
wealth of a nation is measured by a sense of
egalitarianism, a sense of true democracy, and social well
being. Good governments are measured by their ethics
and for doing what is best for the majority. USA
Conservatives explain that the USA is in poor shape due to
a long line of democratic “liberal” presidents. Both
Sweden and Japan are more liberal than the
USA. If a liberal government was bad for a nation
then why are Sweden and Japan doing better than the
USA? One of the reasons is that, in the USA,
corporate social interests are being put above the
national interests. Wealth in the USA is getting
to a narrower few while its poor population is growing
and the masses are becoming more and more
disenfranchised.Taxes are designed to provide
protection and services to the nation, yet many find
loopholes or just will not pay them, thereby impoverishing
the country. Comments regarding how the USA has lost its
edge by decreasing taxes, and its impact in the nation’s
well being are mentioned under Wealth, Hunger and Peace. As
Chart K shows, in spite of high taxes, sound fiscal
discipline and good governmental ethics such as practiced in
Sweden and Japan have struck a fine balance of good
government that is reflected in its people’s sense of fair
play and social stability. The idea that less taxation
means better government is erroneous thinking. This is
one of the reasons why the USA is now faltering as a world
leader and some of its citizens are starting to show social
unrest, increasing crime, illiteracy, and a sense of
ill-directed rage.

Billions of illegal monies from tax dodgers, drug traffic,
black market and crime are spent worldwide. Increasing
goods and service taxes while decreasing income taxes would
further capture revenues as this would include all members
of society. Overburdening luxury taxes, however, can
discourage incentives for some elite industries, destroying
niche jobs. With the advent of computer software, all
countries will be able to keep tax records, allowing for
capturing and keeping fiscal discipline. Billions of
dollars worldwide can be raised for research, education,
family planning, social programs and conservation. As
populations grow and as countries become more affluent, more
energy-consuming gadgets are utilized. This increases
energy consumption, and, hence, pollution. Energy
taxes must be designed to discourage fossil fuel use, and
encourage alternative energy sources; but, in general, as
was done in Europe triggered by the Brundtland report,
energy use must be curtailed and conservation in all
parameters must be the new paradigm of the future.

EDUCATION: Mass
education has to appeal to people's basic needs, economic
reward and survival instincts. In 1987 "The Brundtland
Report" showed the human impact on the environment, and the
fragile balance that must be kept. Her report
triggered a wide range of actions,
including the UN "Earth Summits" in
1992 and 2002, the International Climate Change Convention
and worldwide "Agenda
21" programs. This report inspired towns and
cities in Northern Europe to initiate the Brundtland City
Energy Network in 1990 encouraging the curbing of power use
for obtaining sustainability. (72) The WHO president mentions that
having an honest dialog with one’s countrymen will allow
them to accept the realities of our times, and they will
champion reforms. How can they do so if no one openly speaks
to them about this? Unless our leadership broaches these
important subjects, we will have no change to improve the
world’s situation.

A more impacting and
eye-opening report by Pimentel in 1994 from Cornell
University was presented to the Association for the
Advancement of Science. It showed that overpopulation
is at the root of diminishing natural resources. It
shows that in order for earth to continue sustaining us as
it does today the solution is to limit all new families from
now on to an average of 1.5 children per family. If
this is done, after an expected growth of a total 9 billion
people in 40-50 years populations will decrease by attrition
and finally reach a total population of 2 billion by the
year 2100. At that rate, the earth will be able to
catch up and replenish its renewable products and sustain
that population. If this advice is not followed, as we
are already eating tomorrow’s seeds, there would be no seeds
left tomorrow to sustain future generations (73, 74).For example, China suffered about 30-60
million deaths due to famine, according to Becker’s
investigation during 1958-61(75).This famine was due to poor Maoist
government policies. After this, China was forced to
legislate a one-child-per-family law to assure its
sustainability. If this problem would have been
addressed sooner, when the population was not so numerous,
there would have been time to allow for a 2 child
family. Let us not fall behind in our family planning
so that governments do not have to intervene, as China did,
as a solution of last resort. In spite of this
on-going policy, China adds about 18 million births per year
with still growing sustainability problems with no end in
sight ( 76).

We can reach a population of 8 or 10 billion in the next 40
years or so but the price is to decimate all available
resources irreparably. Governments alone cannot teach
the need for family planning as the notion of family
planning can be perceived as a racist political manipulation
that violates human rights. Religious organizations
and educational institutions must share this
obligation. Family planning has to rise out of ethical
and economic conviction, but how can one reach such
conviction if our governments do not tell us of this
problem? The BBC,National Geographic,
National Public Radio, PBS, Bill Moyers, Nova, Journal
Science, Discovery Magazine,Journal Nature,Scientific American,
and the Smithsonian Magazine are a few of the
organizations that inform the world about these problems.
Unfortunately, in general, people prefer to either look at
soccer or soap operas rather than to watch these
“intellectual” programs. The Sierra Club in Cleveland,
Ohio makes 30 second public announcements in radio,
capturing the masses with population, pollution, and
environmental information that otherwise would not be
heard. This public service must be adopted in all mass
media that captures all sorts of listeners, readers and
watchers so as to bring to the people awareness of the
problems so they can realize the magnitude of the problem
and, on their own, start conserving and planning for their
children’s future (77).

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION: In
September, 1994, the United Nations met in Cairo, Egypt, and
all nations agreed that the world is facing an
overpopulation problem. Their conclusion was that
family planning is key to a sustainable future for
mankind. This is under the clear understanding that
ethical, religious and cultural values must be respected
above all. All countries agreed that strengthening the
family, respecting the dignity of man, recognition of women
and children's rights are paramount for this solution to be
successful. We must not wait until mass famines start
in order to convince all of what we are facing. Mass
education is the answer - born out of a sense of
responsibility and ethics to our fellow men. (79).

We can keep the gloomy predictions from coming true and
overcome the obstacles if we work together as a world family
in all fields. All the efforts of one country will
ultimately not make much difference to the global picture,
if other countries continue at the present exponential
population and pollution growth. For example, Iceland
has no problem with overpopulation. However, the
world's dumping of sewage and pollutants are decreasing this
country’s main source of income is fish.

Countries that pollute use child labor, have sweat shops and
subsidize their products, etc., must face import taxes by
the recipient countries, lest they profit at the expense of
the citizens who pay high taxes for environmental
protection. These import duties will keep business on
a more level playing field and have all nations tow the
line, for this must be an international effort if it is to
succeed.

POLLUTION, CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING: It is part
of being alive to breathe, wash, manufacture, cook, build,
etc. This, however, translates into pollution,
something that has become apparent only lately because of
the increasing numbers of people. The National Academy
of Sciences points out that "Population growth is the
biggest single driver of atmospheric pollution". If we
add 3 billion more people, as we will in the next 30-40
years, the pollution problem will worsen, deteriorating our
lives and our planet. The chapter on education clearly
spells out the environmental devastation we face and the
solution to prevent it from becoming a reality. The
website in this reference shows charts reflecting the
major air polluting nations (80).
The more affluent societies are the greatest pollutants…and
parallel to that is, as population grows, pollution
grows. India, as we can see in the following chart has
only 1.1% pollution per capita while the USA has 10.7
%.

Countries which emitted
most CO2 in their continents or
regions in 2001 Authors: Anita Bokwa,
Pawel Jezioro
Source of data: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/

About 70% to 80% of air pollution is from motor
vehicles, engines and coal factories.
Industrialized countries are the main culprits in
pollution and in the depletion of worldwide natural
resources. Coal smoke contains potent carcinogens,
affecting the more than 1 billion rural poor who use
coal for cooking. Indoor air pollution accounts
for 1.8 to 2.7 million annual global deaths from air
pollution. The USA has paid over
$30 billion in compensation to coal mining families due to
lung disease, according to Columbia University.
International pressure must require industrialized
countries to follow conservation and pollution
regulations to ease the environmental stresses.
Worldwide, particulate and SO2 pollution cause at least
500,000 premature deaths, 4 to 5 million new cases of
bronchitis, and millions of other respiratory illnesses
per year. Smog has become transcontinental carrying
large dust clouds of particulates and sulfur from Asian
coal to the U.S. according to the Worldwatch Institute.

Some of these solutions include: increasing taxes on
CO2 emissions and motor vehicle purchases to encourage
mass transport, return to major cities, and vertical
dwelling thereby easing free land for habitats and
agriculture. Replacing fossil fuel engines by
electrical ones generated from atomic, wind or hydrogen
will address the pollution problem. Discounts for
use of electricity during off hours will maximize utility
use. Utilization of fluorescent lights in all new
buildings and in old lamps that fit will then decrease
energy demands. The US energy Information
Administration reported in 1997 that using fluorescent
lights instead of regular light bulbs for just four hours
daily it would translate to a 33% savings in electrical
use. Also, since fluorescents produce less heat, the
use of air-conditioning is less. However, the
mercury in fluorescents is toxic to the environment, so
the long term effect questionably offsets the electric
savings. The international law banning (FCC’s)
Chlorhydrofluorocarbons that destroys the ozone layer must
continue to be strictly enforced. Deadly skin
cancers such as melanoma and squamous cell cancers have
greatly increased in just the past few years due to the
destruction of the ozone layer, not to speak of the
increasing global warming that the ozone destruction is
causing. Each year, according to the Worldwatch Institute,
ozone loss cost the United States between $5 and 10
billion in crop losses alone.

A practical approach to curb pollution in industry has been
used by the Environmental Protection Agency of the USA:
“Emissions Trading”. This is a win-win
situation, and has greatly decreased air pollution from
fossil fuel emissions worldwide. Under an emissions
trading system applied to the power industry, a power
company that is able to reduce emissions to a level below
the legal limit can obtain emissions reduction credits from
the government. It can then sell the credits to
another power company that emits more than what the law
permits and needs the credits to offset its excessive
emissions. The power company that buys the credits
pays for the emissions improvements while the other power
company is able to achieve financial benefit by reducing
their emissions to a level below the legal limit. This
system of emissions trading will work where one power
company finds it cheaper to buy credits from another power
company located within the same region, i.e. in the same
“air shed" than to try to reduce the emissions by
itself (80).

Tax cuts and laws requiring installation of fuel efficient
equipment, and pollution-cutting fuel-emission devices will
considerably decrease pollution. Computers are notorious for
high energy use. Programming computers to automatically turn
off idle equipment must be installed. Motion sensor
devices to use light only when a person enters and remains
in the area will save electrical costs. Germany and
many European countries use lighted buttons in rooms and
hallways, so users press them and light the hall when in use
and go off automatically. This saves enormous amounts
of electricity.

Industrial executives must be made personally accountable
for pollution, just as medical doctors are ultimately
accountable for their negligence. Penalties, including
withdrawing manufacturing licenses, must be imposed on
manufacturing plants and economic penalties must be imposed
on executive officers and their companies, depending upon
the severity of the damages. International laws
addressing clean-ups and wrongful death payments for
accidents should be instituted in such a way that companies
cannot treat life and ecological destruction as a commodity
that money can buy. These threats will encourage
executives to follow the laws; otherwise, any monetary
penalties imposed are passed on to the consumer, thus being
non-deterrents.

Laws and incentives must encourage citizens to separate
reusable components from their daily garbage. This
will reduce disposal costs and cut down on wastefulness,
allow for recycling, decrease pollution and slow depletion
of natural resources. This will also raise awareness
in a daily basis of how much trash one deals with.Aluminum,
glass and paper can be recycled efficiently. The cost
of aluminum from recycling is one twentieth of the price of
extracting it from bauxite. Polystyrene foam and
plastics can be recycled for insulation boards and other
products. In high-rise buildings, garbage disposals
can be transformed so that designated dates for disposing
various types of trash through existing chutes for
collection and recycling are implemented.

FAMILY, DRUGS AND CRIME:
Self-imposed pressure to obtain material things is driving a
great deal of US Citizens to a frenetic pace not seen in
many countries. Material wealth is the measure of
success now, not as in the past, where family culture,
leisure and civility were more important. Economic
pressures brought on by overpopulation are increasing
competition to achieve material wealth. This is
forcing many to spend long hours at work, so families spend
little time together. Mothers who join the work force
to keep up their standard of living or to make a living
leave children unattended during their formative
years. The price is paid in growing numbers of
psychological disturbances, drugs, alcohol, teenager
pregnancies and divorce. It is no surprise that the
USA has the highest crime rate when compared to developed
countries. When compared to liberal countries like
Japan and Sweden, the rate of illiteracy in the US is much
higher since materialism is given more importance than the
culture in many households (Chart K ).

According
to the 2004 statistics compiled by the AFL-CIO it
states: “ In the USA the number of working women has
risen since 1900 when only 20.4% of all women worked while
in 2003, more than 60% worked. Today most mothers—even
those with the youngest children—participate in the labor
force. Almost 32% of families where children under 18
lived with their mother (without a father) were below the
poverty level in 2002. The overall labor force
participation rate of mothers with children fewer than 18
years of age was 72.2% in 2002”. Whereas in 1970, 12%
of all children lived in one parent families and in 2002
almost 31% lived with only one parent. Seventy-three
percent of these children lived with their mothers”.
Nova Scotia, Germany and Switzerland are some of the
countries that do not allow stores be open Sundays, in order
to encourage family ties and relaxation, for the better
emotional health of its people, realizing family and
relaxation are more important than money (103)and(70)

As shown in chart (K ), of most developed countries, the
USA, when compared to Japan and Sweden, has the highest
homicide rates, abortion and illiteracy rates according to
the WHO organization and UNFPA data. In countries
where social mores and family bonds are stronger and
children and elders are cared for by their mothers or their
extended families; crime and abortion are less
prevalent. As parents have no time to be with their
families as before, they give more material things to their
families in lieu of time well spent with them, creating a
materialistic society. But materialism does not
fulfill the human needs for love, understanding and
encouragement that families need to be happy. To
expect nurseries, schools or governments to provide the
tender touch of parents is unrealistic, for loving parents
are key to a healthy society. When comparing the USA
to Japan and Sweden, one wonders why crime rate is so
prevalent in the USA. It is our belief that the media,
computer games and the movies expose American children to
violence in their formative years, creating a culture of
violence, something that is not as prevalent in other
countries. Affluence also causes intolerance and
arrogance, affecting many in their interpersonal relations
who live in a country where extreme affluence is available
to some, yet not to others and causes rage in how wealth is
distributed, accounting for some of the problems facing the
USA (104). This is not the case in Sweden, Japan or
other countries where disparity in wealth is not so
pronounced, and more importantly, where culture and
education are more valued (105).1) DRUGS and CRIME:
Poor self-esteem due to lack of nurturing, lack of education
and negative peer pressure leads many to drugs or
alcohol. Drugs are undermining families, causing
economic and emotional losses to society. Alcoholism
has been successfully helped by the idea of Alcoholics
Anonymous worldwide not burdening tax payers. This
concept can help other types of addictions. This works
because it gives their members the necessary emotional and
social support they lacked. Human nurturing gives
emotional strength to seek medical treatment thereby curing
many. China faced country-wide opium addiction up to
1949. Strong political will practically eradicated
this problem (106). As seen in the Graph K(USA
Homicide Rate) large peaks of crime waves that took place in
the USA were related to drug or alcohol gangs overtaking the
country. During the prohibition, gangsters created a
rash of crimes. More recently, during the “War on
Drugs” the USA experienced similar havoc from the Medellin
Cartel and others. The Prohibition engendered more
crime, and did not deter alcohol, so it was repealed.
Now, alcoholism is here to stay. Unless we use China’s
tactics, something incompatible with our constitution, we
will have to curb them by encouraging prevention. This
can be accomplished by giving our children a sense of
purpose, love and understanding from childhood on.

USA HomicideRate(A
Traditional Second Amendment Argument)

According
to the Journal of Law and Economics, (
October, 1999 Vol. 42), it mentions a study that
calculates that the total annual cost of criminal
behavior as a national burden to the USA is in excess of $1
trillion. This general study estimates all of the
direct and indirect costs of crime for the entire
nation. In addition to aggregating expenses commonly
associated with unlawful activity, it considers ancillary
costs that have not yet been included in an overall formula
for the cost of crime. It includes costs for the legal
system, victim losses, crime-prevention agencies, the burden
of crime encompassing the opportunity costs of victims',
criminals', and prisoners' time; the fear of being
victimized; and the cost of private deterrence
(108). The lack of political will in many governments
to stamp out drugs due to political and economic pressures
from the drug cartels hinders success in the “war on
drugs”. Political pressure from us, the voters, will
force a change. The White House calculates $160
billion a year goes to illegal drugs that fuel the
narco-traffic instead to our economy (108).2)
GUNS and CRIME:
When one watches American TV, goes to arcades, and watches
videos or movies one will see how popular violence, crime
and guns are in these arenas. If a child grows up in
this culture of violence, where crime, deceit, police shows,
burglars and wars are glamorized, it is little wonder
we see the outcome of guns being used for violent
crimes. According to the Journal of the
International Epidemiological Association in
1998, Krug showed that of the top wealthy nations, the USA
has the highest homicide rate in the world. Similar
data was reported by the United Nations Survey of Crime
Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems from 1998
- 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Center for
International Crime Prevention). These reports place
the USA at the top of all developed nations with
9.93/100,000 homicides in 1998, while Sweden had 1.3 and
Japan had 0.57 (109).
Homicide and crime are closely linked to drug problems and
are a national disease in the USA (See CHART K).
Unless we change our culture and expose crime and
gun/weapons as a type of activity linked to low-lifers, this
will continue to be glamorized and the numbers of
gun-related crimes will only grow as life’s stresses deepen.

WELFARE
and SOCIAL SECURITY:
The USA provides tax allowances for each child, and supports
unwed pregnancies thereby encouraging social disintegration
and population growth. Many teenagers in the USA
escape unhappy family lives by becoming pregnant, knowing
the government will assure them a way of existence.
How can some parents and governments encourage youths to
throw away their futures and subject their infants to
immature parents? These teenage mothers are
ill-prepared to parent their infants, or provide for
them. China gives assistance to single-child families,
but shrugs further help for additional children, deterring
overpopulation. To discourage unwed motherhood, Japan
is promulgating laws to cut single mother’s benefits in
hopes of strengthening family values (110).
Countless countries have led citizens to believe Social
Security is a pension fund where they can expect the
government to pay for their retirement. This
discourages personal savings and burdens the government
beyond its economic limits. As new families are less
numerous, the numbers of younger generations joining the
work force diminishes and less funds go to Social
Security. This is one of the reasons strapped
governments will not let its citizens know about the
overpopulation problem. This would encourage family
planning, diminishing new able hands from joining the work
force that feeds the social security system! In Japan
people, and not the government, fund and handle their own
retirement and not social security, as in the USA. Of
course in Japan Social Security provides coverage for the
disabled and sick.(111). The USA provides
subsistence to the unemployed, discouraging job
searches. In Sweden, many government benefits can be
obtained if the unemployed works to earn credits for such
services. Such a system gives citizens a sense of
accomplishment, self-worth and being part of the community.
This allows them to regain confidence while making them, and
the country, healthier and productive. Welfare robs
people of their self-respect and creates a poor role model
for their children, perpetuating a tier of generations who
fail in society. In order to promote family planning,
governments must help with tax abatements and health and
retirement plans to families as a compensation for limiting
the number of children they bring into the world. If
this assistance is not provided, families will continue
having as many children as possible for their children will
be their retirement security as in any proletariat society.
In third world countries women’s organizations can be formed
to meet in villages monthly where health and family planners
come to provide medical care and education. This
should be an occasion for community get-togethers to promote
education and unity. Recognition awards for small
families and for children who excel in school should be
given at these meetings, thus promoting social encouragement
for this type of thinking. Small families and
education will then be fashionable.

HOUSING,
HOMELESS and CITY PLANNING:
Agricultural land is vanishing under parking lots, homes,
roads, etc. Vertical dwellings have to be encouraged
by city planners as it is done in Japan. To save
productive land, lest we have no place to plant our crops (112)city
planners must carefully design dwellings to prevent the
feeling of anonymity that frequently prevails in large
housing complexes. Mud slides seen in increasing
numbers are due to overpaving the ground, thus not allowing
rain to filter through and bringing entire neighborhoods
down. Green spaces and tree planting must be
encouraged to avoid this, to clean city air and to decrease
heat in cities.
Governmentally subsidized housing MUST require new dwellers
during a period of one year of free housing to earn the
right to continue living there by conforming to cleanliness
and neighborliness, so their shelter would not be taken for
granted. Tenants that have earned the right to live
there after this probationary period must sign a contract to
“purchase” their dwelling making monthly payments for a
determined period of time. This investment, no matter how
nominal, would give them the pride of ownership. It is
human nature to respect that for which one has invested time
and money. Whatever effort that will have to be made
in order to pay for their housing will change their
attitudes toward their homes. Community recreational
facilities will give our community a place to rest and find
things to do after work. It will strengthen
communities by destroying crime. Dwellers that do not
conform must be placed in special housing with more
surveillance to assure the community safety and
preservation.
The level of social development of a nation is measured by
its ability to provide for the destitute, infirm and
poor. Sweden has one of the fewest homeless
populations due to its governmental programs. This
problem often is difficult to address, for many homeless
people have drug and psychological problems and refuse
living under social care since this requires them to give up
their habits and they need their “social” counterparts, thus
they prefer a vagabond life.

RELIGIONS
AND CHARITY: We hope world religions
listen to the consequences of overpopulation. The role
of religion should be to preach us to bring to this world
only the number of children for whom we can honestly provide
love, food and time without expecting society or governments
to carry our burden. Many religions ban any form of
contraception and abortion, claiming we must protect life at
all costs. Lack of contraception and family planning
education takes more lives YEARLY than the entire Second
World War did. The World Health Organization reports
that there are about 46 million reported abortions yearly, 8
million infant deaths and that over a half million women die
during pregnancy. For the religious who claim the
right to life, the ethical dilemma is: ‘Is it better to
teach family planning and accept contraception in order to
prevent the deaths caused by their "moral teachings" or
continue with this holocaust due to their principles?’
Religions believe ignorance of sexuality will prevent
abortions. Paradoxically, more educated countries
where abortion is legal and birth control is accessible have
fewer abortions and less sexually transmitted diseases (see
chart K).

Printed
with Permission Time Magazine Photo H

With
permission ASSOCIATED PRES Photo I

Printed
with permission American pictures Photo J

Printed with permission American
pictures Photo K

In medicine there is a dictum: sever
the limb to save the life. Some
religions preach to have as many children as God gives
them. In this urgent crisis where our planet cannot
provide for any additional mouths, (See graph in Home Page)
we must apply this dictum. Either that or we save the
ones who are alive and save the future of humanity or we
lose it all by “preserving the limb that will bring demise
to the whole." Desperate times call for desperate
measures. Natural family planning must be taught by
the church that only believes in natural laws.
However, the idea that we must limit the size of our
families is paramount. Religions that accept
contraception must encourage family planning in order to
preserve society and the world’s future. Some
religious teachings believe that no matter what, God will
provide. This is unrealistic and cruel. Millions of
people, no matter how much they love God, because the earth
cannot provide them with food will die because of this
ill-conceived notion.

Often some of the faithful are abandoning their religion
because they feel their emotional and social needs are not
being met, or in the case of the Catholic Church, due to its
refusal to accept contraception. At times religious
organizations condemn their faithful for their frailties and
failings. How can one be so strong when the pressures of
life are to some, overwhelming? Religions must be
there to nurture its followers and help fill these
needs. Is it ethical to bring to this world a child
one cannot afford to feed? Is it ethical to prolong
the life of a dying person when there is no hope by means of
costly life support systems when there is no money for a
morsel of food for a hungry child? In the case of
Terry Schiavo, how many countless funds were spent in legal
fees that could have avoided thousands of poor children’s
deaths? Our sense of ethics must change if we are to
be good stewards of our fellow men.

As the population graph in our cover page shows, as daily
stresses grow, among many, promiscuity grows due to the
craving for love, closeness, or as a form of release that
sex brings: This, however, brings more children into
this world (See graph in opening page - stress causes need
for sexual tension and “baby booms” take place).
Crime, drug addiction, homelessness-joblessness, teenage
pregnancy, crime and divorce are the bitter fruit of lack of
time for love and nurturing in our homes and communities due
to the competitiveness that overpopulation has brought
us. At the wake of these stressful times, with
increasing wealth, materialism has overcome many in the
USA. It affects every aspect of its society. As
parents, it is up to us to nurture our children, encourage
education and respect good ethical standards above material
things. To expect the schools to do this is shunning
our own obligations as parents. Some parents think
that being generous monetary providers to their families is
their only duty. This will never replace their need
for love and our time spent with them. To bring
children into this world to fill our need for love, as
little helpers in our daily chores, as insurance for old age
or to assure our family name is passed on to posterity is,
ultimately, the most selfish of deeds.

Perhaps religion should refresh the teaching that charity
begins at home. The concept of charity must be
reviewed. It is said "It is better to give than to
receive”. To be in the gutter begging for a morsel of food
strips a man of his dignity and drags his spirit to the
lowest of levels. Of course he who hands out a morsel
to him senses a feeling of power for being able to "help”,
and at the same time gladdens his heart knowing he is not at
the receiving end. But by doing so, he fuels the
downward spiral of this humiliation. Is it not nobler
to give one's hand to raise him out of this precipice so he
can stand tall and carry his own weight and regain his
dignity? Family planning and education will help end
and prevent this growing problem. Religion must join
in this battle. History shows that governments will
ban religious institutions that do not accede to new social
needs (114)(118).
A world without God would be a truly barren place.

Mother Theresa teaches that we must not worry for nothing
happens without the Will of God. We also know that God
helps those who help themselves. Perhaps it is God's
will to have brought mankind to this crossroad in our
path. For the first time humanity is facing a problem
so insidious and threatening that to overcome it we MUST
WORK TOGETHER AS A WORLD FAMILY transcending politics and
greed. Unless we limit our families, the alternatives
are desolation and/or war. In the realization of our
vulnerability we will find humility, brotherhood and our way
back to God.